It’s Election Time

So if you’d prefer to split hairs over the word we’re applying to the situation, OK, we’ll examine that.

First of all, the “races” you are referring to are not as clear-cut as you believe – race as a scientific model of categorization is largely discredited and no longer in common use, as it is difficult to clearly define; it has largely been replaced with other terms such as “ethnic groups”. The definition of racism is therefore not clear-cut, but has previously been defined by the UN as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”. So by this definition, it is appropriate to describe the vilification of people of other nationalities and/or ethnic origins as racist.

Second, you’re wilfully ignoring that the groups of people Trump has targeted in his campaigns — including Mexicans — are generally of non-white demographics. And as I have already stated, Mexican people — the group you highlighted — are typically of Mestizo or Amerindian ethnicity. So even if we use your narrow definition of racism, we can still find reasons to consider that Trump may be racist for focusing on them.

Finally, “ethnocentrism” refers to the judging of other cultures based on the values of one’s own culture. It is more significant when discussing language, religion and customs, rather than physical attributes that would be described as “race”, or ethnic or national backgrounds.

So: Trump could certainly be considered to have an ethnocentric world view. But he is absolutely still a racist. These are not mutually exclusive.


It’s an objectifying term, which would in fact make it derogatory. The reason you don’t see it as derogatory is because objectifying comments made in reference to men seldom come from a source that poses a threat to said men.

Consider: when women receive unsolicited comments on their physical appearance, it is often from men who they consider to be strangers.

Now consider: women are disproportionately affected by rape and sexual assault. So, women are generally in more danger of being attacked by a man for their body than the reverse.

Also consider: we still live in a society which generally favors men. This is evidenced in demographics of positions of power/leadership in politics and business, average income of men being higher than women, etc.

So: men are in far less danger of being sexually assaulted by women, and in society generally hold a great deal more power and influence than women. So it follows that they are far less likely to find objectification uncomfortable, unpleasant or threatening, despite the fact that the basic act of objectification is still a reduction of their being to their physical appearance. (Here is an article which explores the societal aspect of this idea in some more depth.)


I don’t underestimate poor taste jokes – I think they’re far more harmful than a lot of people think. If anything, you’re the more likely of the two of us to be underestimating them. Here is a fairly lengthy article which discusses how rape jokes can contribute to rape culture, and cites some scientific studies to evidence this.


Your “laconic answer” did not so much as mention the article which I linked to in either case. And even in this post, you merely skate over the article by indirectly referencing its content in vague terms, rather than fully responding to it. For someone who claims that they want to participate in “rational discussions”, you’ve made very little effort to actually participate in this discussion.

If you want to be taken more seriously, try dropping the laconism. It’s not doing you any favors.


Then what is sexism to you? Is your definition of sexism so narrow that you can only acknowledge it in scientific data? This man constantly makes derogatory comments about women, insults women based purely on their appearance, says women who work are boring to him, boasts of forcing himself on women, and has been accused of sexual assault multiple times – none of this makes you consider that this guy might be sexist?

man what you're basically saying here is that we can never understand because we're not women. that's...i'm pretty sure that's bullshit. i don't know. i mean yeah, i don't have a fanny, but if someone called me a cunt are you saying it wouldn't have the same offensive effect on me? because it would. ohhh it would.

i know you're probably thinking "you would feel offended, but it would be a different 'spectrum' of offense. you would be offended from the male point of view" and again, yeah, i can't really argue with that because i ain't no hollaback girl but yet again, that seems like bollocks. bollocks as in rubbish, not the male form/agenda. not the testes. what you're saying doesn't sit well with me. what about transgenders or whatever? men that become women? are they still excluded from the 'womens perspective - no men allowed!' club?

honestly, i get where you're coming from, but you make it sound like a crusade. if we were to practise what you preach then every situation you personally have ever been in where there were sexist remarks made about men and you just laughed along due to peer pressure or said and did nothing to stop it, you were normalising sexism and putting us on a lower rung than you etc etc. you were part of the problem, because you can't make heroinesque statements about sexist jokes widening the gap between genders and ultimately putting you below us without us being able to say "ditto".

does that seem fair to you? of course it fucking doesn't.

yeah to be fair that's some pretty fucked up shit, when i first heard it i was disgusted.

there are more than two options. this is life. not everyone that isn't part of the solution is necessarily part of the problem. there are more than two options. this is, like, life. not a Bethesda game.

there are more than two options.

[QUOTE]man what you're basically saying here is that we can never understand because we're not women. that's...i'm pretty sure that's bullshit. i don't know. i mean yeah, i don't have a fanny, but if someone called me a cunt are you saying it wouldn't have the same offensive effect on me? because it would. ohhh it would.

i know you're probably thinking "you would feel offended, but it would be a different 'spectrum' of offense. you would be offended from the male point of view" and again, yeah, i can't really argue with that because i ain't no hollaback girl but yet again, that seems like bollocks. bollocks as in rubbish, not the male form/agenda. not the testes. what you're saying doesn't sit well with me. what about transgenders or whatever? men that become women? are they still excluded from the 'womens perspective - no men allowed!' club?[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that men can't understand discrimination. There's a whole host of problems that our strain of 21st century society affects men negatively, and POC or LGBT men even more so. What I'm saying is that to some people, Donald Trump's statement aren't cause for concern because he said them to a woman, and because it is so deeply ingrained in society for women to be treated like objects rather than people, when a man such as Trump says he's forced himself on women--and let's be clear--that's what he's boasting about--there are people who say it's "just boys talk". Which is bull shit.

There are people on this blog which have proved that theory. Then there are the men who say, "oh well I can't stand what Trump said, because I have a mum, and a sister, and a wife." Why do you have to qualify the fact that you're upset? Why not just say, "I don't like Trump because he said shitty things." Like, what? If they had no female family members they wouldn't give a shit? It hurts, man.

In regards to the last bit, no. I feel like you're talking about feminism in general maybe? Regardless, no. Trans women have just as much say in the discussion as women born as women. TERFs are scum who hide behind a guise of supposed feminism. They're not with us.

[QUOTE]honestly, i get where you're coming from, but you make it sound like a crusade. if we were to practise what you preach then every situation you personally have ever been in where there were sexist remarks made about men and you just laughed along due to peer pressure or said and did nothing to stop it, you were normalising sexism and putting us on a lower rung than you etc etc. you were part of the problem, because you can't make heroinesque statements about sexist jokes widening the gap between genders and ultimately putting you below us without us being able to say "ditto".[/QUOTE]

You're right, you're absolutely right. When you go along with sexist jokes you are just stringing along the existing social norms that reinforce the discrimination of women. Yes, we're all guilty. I'm guilty! When a guy friend says something against women--which is supposed to be a joke, but I guess you could also consider a veiled insult really--and I laugh along because I don't want to cause an argument, I'm perpetuating the norm. The thing is I'm trying to consciously not do that.

You don't have to call out every instance of that shit, because who has the time. But if you're friend goes on an anti-women rant at the pub and you nod along, you [I]are[/I] a part of the problem. If I was a man and someone did that to me I'd probably just say, "hey, guy, that's not cool, man. Don't say that shit, it's offensive." And move on...or something.

[QUOTE]there are more than two options. this is life. not everyone that isn't part of the solution is necessarily part of the problem. there are more than two options. this is, like, life. not a Bethesda game.
[/QUOTE]

Normally I agree, but as with racism, the perpetuation of sexism is black and white. You either do something to make it better, or you do something to make it worse.

That doesn't mean you can't pick your battles. Hell I'm a firm believer in weighing up someone or something as a whole before you make a judgement. If a guy friend makes a sexist joke but also has a history of picketing with me or attending meetings or whatever shit, I'm not gonna burn my bra and throw at his face whilst screaming incomprehensible feminist maxims.

I dunno man, all I believe is this: men and women should be equal. If a guy (or a woman!) says dumb shit about women, you should call them out when you can.

People call inequality upon themselves by identifying with certain gender roles.

Also masculine people are often working at self-destructive jobs just to preserve their masculinity.

Nonetheless, protests and demonstrations are good. But I would like some egalitarian movements. Too many modern feminists are FRA, not feminist.

Gender segregation is the root of all discord. But, of course, we do not live in the hyperdeveloped society, so people still let slight physiological differences cause such drastic differences in their behavior.

"Men are rapists, women are sluts" - no. Both can be whatever. Male rape is real. And a person is not a slut depending on their genitalia. A person is sexually active and that is it.

That whole comment is pretty fucked up but I'm only going to focus on this because what the fuck. "Transgenders" isn't a word because transgender is an adjective. Transgender people can be men, women, or anything else. Nobody becomes anything and trans women aren't excluded from the woman group because they're women. Ideally, I mean. There are a lot of shitty people out there.

[QUOTE]People call inequality upon themselves by identifying with certain gender roles.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps in an ideal world gender wouldn't be an issue, but we're not at that point yet, even if some of us are working towards that goal. Deconstructing gender roles and archetypes is good, but victim shaming people for adhering to something that is massively ingrained in society is shitty.

[QUOTE]Also masculine people are often working at self-destructive jobs just to preserve their masculinity.[/QUOTE]

As someone who works in the building industry, I 1000000% agree. It's sad to see, for instance a guy who'd recently had to deal with still birth and was obviously depressed took so much shit for not coming into work when all he would have had to do is have a heart felt explanation to one of the managers. He told me, but ultimately I was powerless to help, and that's so sad.

[quote]Nonetheless, protests and demonstrations are good. But I would like some egalitarian movements. Too many modern feminists are FRA, not feminist.[/quote]

Egalitarianism is literally feminism. You're saying too many feminists are...female rights activists? What do you think feminism is??????? We want equality, yah what a crazy thought!

[quote]Gender segregation is the root of all discord. But, of course, we do not live in the hyperdeveloped society, so people still let slight physiological differences cause such drastic differences in their behavior.[/quote]

I would argue that you're partially right, but most first world nations have long since desegregated gender in all but the most intimate of places. The biggest causes of discord in society are--to me--poverty and education, or lack thereof.

[quote]"Men are rapists, women are sluts" - no. Both can be whatever. Male rape is real. And a person is not a slut depending on their genitalia. A person is sexually active and that is it.[/quote]

I agree to everything.

I am just intersex with deconstructed gender, so well, do not really mind my words. People have a societal instinct to blend in, anyway.

By FRA I mean the "feminists", who call male humans "pigs" and "rapists". Feminism for me is an egalitarian movement. FRA is radical movement.

By gender segregation I also mean smaller details like clothing choice, movement or mental patterns.

@Sybil
fair enough. i pretty much agree with everything you said apart from this

there are more than two options.

really? you get pissy about a specific part of my post that was obviously asking the question "who can feel what?" when it comes to sexism? i was talking about men that have a sex change specifically, and you knew that, but instead you felt the need to pull me up and 'correct' me like some angry gender-nerd forcing me to defend myself by explaining what i meant while simultaneously telling everyone "i'm not sexist" because you've put me in that position, even though again you already knew all that.

i'm not so anally-retentive that i look up every single word i know the general gist of before i post to check and double check their meaning, and if you are that anal about gender ID then you should stop being so fucking sensitive. you'll save yourself a lot of agro because your nitpicking comments and accusations will only ever piss people off or scare them away. i think any layman who read "what about transgenders or whatever? men that become women?" would recognise the reference towards sex changes in particular and not focus on the word 'transgender', which i only said because i wanted to include both males and females, or whatever.

i just thought 'trans' meant both sexes, i'm not a pioneering expert on the matter. obvously i got it wrong and you corrected me but what i hate is how you imply i'm trying to be a cunt or something. fair enough, you obviously know the Oxford dictionary definition off by heart and decided to throw a few eggs to make me look like an ignorant chauvinist (which i can't help but feel a little 'betrayed' about since i fucking defended you during one of the last gender-related shitstorms which must prove to you i'm not from the area of ignorance you're suggesting, so thanks for that) so i had to come back in here and make a big stupid lolloping reply in an effort to dispell what you just implied about me even though you know that isn't the case anyway.

that means you made that post because you were offended by my mention of transgender in that particular instance (in which case, chill out) and/or you just wanted to correct me in a Nazi-esque fashion whilst making me look like the Nazi (in which case, fuck off). if you're sensitive about this shit, either ignore what touches nerves or if you feel compelled to push a response, grow the fuck up and calm down before you do it. your response is as nitpicky and unnecessary as hearing someone shouting in the streets "my dear humans, aliens are attacking! let's band together and defend this world! to the battlements!" and responding with "actually, i think you'll find we're Homo Sapiens, so no one is going to help you. get it right. eheh. eheh."

grow up/calm down.

nah fuck that, tell me why it's so terrible to you. aside from the petty bullshit you just felt the need to cane my arse over, what else is wrong with it?

but if it's more insinuations about how evil i am then just fucking save it.

I think we're ignoring the elephant in the room. Over half of white women voted for Trump. The heck happened there?

the elephant in the room is that aliens are attacking.

It's not really an elephant. Trump got about as many votes as the last few Rep candidates had gotten, and while Hillary had won the popular vote, she still got somewhere around 8mil less votes than Obama had gotten his first term. somewhere around 40% of people registered to vote didn't vote at all this election. This can heighten/lower the percentage of groups that voted for candidate x vs groups that voted for candidate y

White Americans are still the "majority", they're the majority of the rural population, and they have a history of voting red. Rural America has lower rates of educated citizens, and also don't have as much readily available access to what Urban populations have. This is why they tend to blindly vote for the same party at all times without second guessing themselves, and why white voters are the majority that vote red every election cycle.

The DNC fucked up by forcing in a candidate that didn't even hit the rust belt until the way end of the primary elections, where Bernie and Trump had visited several times throughout their campaigns. During the final stretch, the DNC pushed Hillary's campaign to only focus on the Urban, minority, and college educated citizens (all in places that are perma blue and don't need to be swayed either way), and play off of Trump's temperament to win the rest of the country over.

Hillary would have won easily if she had paid more attention to places like the rust belt and if she had made an effort to reassure White America that they are at no risk of losing their rights or lifestyles. While some people might scoff at the latter, it's important to comfort people who may be afraid, even if it's for what you consider silly and irrational reasons. It prevents shit like the Alt Right from gaining traction.

She may have also tipped the scale if she had taken the time to do so, and not only convinced more people to go out and vote, but get more rural voters to consider voting Dem. It's a whole lot of "what-ifs" in the end, though, and I take any statistics like who voted for who with a grain of salt because a lot of places don't even ask for personal information that's not on your state ID to vote, and I can tell you my ID doesn't include anything about my "race" or "ethnicity" or what have you so there's no fucking way my state has accurate tabs on which group voted for what.

[QUOTE]the elephant in the room is that aliens are attacking.[/QUOTE]

Aliens that don't recognise gender REEEEEEEEEEEEE.

I didn't imply that you're evil. Just that your comment was stupid. Implying a misogynistic slur would have the same effect on a man, which it would not. Not to mention that you implied that being called a cunt would send you into some sort of violent rage or something with the way you ended that first paragraph in your original comment.

And I chose to focus on the other thing because I was on my phone and didn't want to type out a huge thing, because it directly affects me, and because I wanted people, including you, to know why what you said is pretty wrong.

But you defended your shitty viewpoint afterwards, even continuing to talk about stuff like "sex changes" which, you know, aren't a thing, and defending ignorant people's ignorance.

you keep thinking that you fucking delusional. i thought it was pretty obvious i wasn't defending ignorant people's ignorance and anyone reading my wall of shit can make their own minds up. if i'm honest i reckon you're just pissed off because i decided to talk about this subject in layman terms and not pull out the Big Book Of Trannies for reference to every fucking syllable i post, which you saw as me being disrespectful or something. that wasn't my intention and i don't believe it comes across that way.

obviously i'm being disrespectful now, to you, but that's because i believe you're being purposely obtuse and just looking to get 'offended'. i mean you do realize i was half-joking through most of my first post, right? do you really think i'd say shit like "hollaback girl" if i was totally serious? i was still making points but i was trying not to be boring. i have a feeling you're literally taking my every word seriously just so you can act like you've been wronged, maybe for attention or maybe because you saw too many little red flags in my post that you've grown so used to blindly chastising without thought.

unfortunately people aren't always going to refer to certain things the way you want them to, and more often than not they don't actually mean any offense by it, sooooo stop looking for arguments maybe?

oh right. okay. so you think it's perfectly fair to say "you can never understand what it's like/how bad it is because you're not female" in a discussion related to sexism. right. well, i guess i better grow some tits before i engage any further in that argument, otherwise i won't be taken seriously ololollool

i have no idea where you got that from, i wasn't implying anything. all i was saying was "it would piss me off too", nothing to do with violent rages. it was a joke. i thought it was more lighthearted than just straight-up saying what i meant. i'm sorry my use of the words "because it would. ohh it would." scarred your psyche so badly. my deepest and most profound fucking apologies, you oversensitive hair-triggered mess of hormones.

Bringing the fucking smack down.

Home run.

Never change MA I fully support this ramble <3

I agree, that was great.
And we should KILL THEM ALL

I criticize something, you overreact in 20 paragraphs and I'm the one getting offended and triggered? Please.

I am aware that I do have a tendency to overreact and go all melodramatic on people, but I'm not looking to be offended. All I did was correct one thing and you got offended. I apologize for basically attacking you though, that was not cool on my part.

Many angry paragraphs are what MA does. It's his life blood. And they're a fucking great read.

Ah yes, a rampant problem. A true epidemic of our times.

MA, can you lay off? FA's original comment wasn't nearly worth the reaction you gave her - I think it's fair that she'd want to point out where you've been tone-deaf, especially as part of the current discussion on gender; and you blowing up on her over it is pretty incredible. It's pretty fucking poor that you'd get so bent out of shape over a couple of sentences and then turn around and accuse someone else of getting offended.


This attitude is pretty unhelpful by the way. It's a discussion, not a schoolyard fight.

[QUOTE]Ah yes, a rampant problem. A true epidemic of our times.[/QUOTE]

Cool it, Breitbart.

oh fuck off, man. i'm not explaining myself again.