Everyday sexism

So basically you're telling us that you were lying when you said you'd change your stance once somebody objected to your behaviour - young or old, male or female, I believe you said.

In fact, you won't ever change your behaviour just because somebody complains. Right?

 

No. Here are the ones you didn't answer, again. I'll number them for you.

1. Tell me what you think about all these women who hate male bosses and colleagues calling them "love".

2. If you were their boss, would you still insist on calling them "love", at least until one of them was brave enough to file a formal complaint against you?

3. Do you think it is conceivable that, given that 75% of women in the survey above hated the term "love" used by older males in the workplace, women who are serving you in the supermarket might similarly be offended when addressed by you as "love"?

4. Will you alter your future behaviour at all in light of this information that Bells has kindly provided to you about how so many women dislike being referred to as "love"?

5. If not, why not?

I'll wait while you answer.

 

YOu can start by stopping the behaviour that Bells has asked you to stop. Here's what she wrote, again, because obviously you didn't get it the first few times:

And again, sexualised inappropriate comments. Not appropriate or appreciated.

Why do you keep doing it, even when I ask you to stop?

It is sexual harassment by any definition. I keep asking you to stop with the sexist and sexual innuendo and jokes and "banter", you keep doing it. Is this you being respectful to women? You claim you'd stop if you were given any indication that it wasn't appreciated. I am literally telling you to stop and you just refuse to and instead keep piling it on.​

She is asking you to stop directing sexualised an inappropriate comments to her.

This is an example of a woman directly asking you to alter your behaviour towards her.

You have been saying all along that if any woman ever told you your behaviour towards her was unwelcome, you would change it.

Tell me how you will now alter your behaviour towards Bells, in light of her request that you stop posting sexist and sexual innuendo and jokes and "banter" to her. Tell her how you will change.

 

None of the examples you have given support your position.

Clearly, you think that because sexism is rampant in the society in which you move, it's all good if you condone it and actively participate in it.

Two wrongs don't make a right, paddoboy. When will you realise that?

If I was not offended by your "joke" about women being indecisive - a sexist stereotype - then I would not have commented on it.

But surely you're kidding when you claim you still you don't know if I find your sexism offensive, after so many posts to this thread?

Just so you know, I'd also think it was offensive if your wife were to call me "love". Sure, I might put it down to her upbringing, to force of habit, to not knowing any better, to acculturation, etc. Sure, I would almost certainly not make an issue of it with her because, as I wrote earlier, I try not to be an asshole. And sure, it's at the low end of the offensiveness scale. But that wouldn't change the fact.

That's your white male privilege, right there. It's the patriarchy, mate! Obviously you've never been told until now. It's past time that you were told.

Now you know. Now you have no excuse. Your behaviour is now knowingly disrespectful. The only question is: will you change anything?

How can you hope to defend being a sleazy sexist pig? You can only change, or dig a deeper hole for yourself. There is really no other option, apart from simply bowing out of the conversation. At least then, if you choose, you can be a sleazy sexist pig more privately, rather than making a public spectacle of yourself and having it on the interwebs for years to come.

I have seen no reports of any disgusting language in this thread from you (or anybody else, for that matter). Possibly you did file reports and other moderators dealt with them.

 

That's why I wrote "... if your wife were to call me 'love'...". It's called a counterfactual. You can look it up.

I don't know what that means. Is that a pool reference? Are you saying you somehow know she was brought up better than I was? Is that an attempt to insult my parents?

No. That lie doesn't get you off the hook. Try to be better.

As I keep saying, you have no idea.

It won't change even if somebody tells you they are offended?

First it was "If anybody says I'm offending them, I'll change". Now it's "If anybody says I'm offending them, I'll change, unless it's somebody on sciforums in which case I'll keep on as usual." I don't hold out great hopes for you not to apply a similar exception every time it suits you. Basically, any excuse not to alter your behaviour will do, right?

So what are you whinging about?

This is all your choosing, paddoboy. You can stop at any time. I reminded you of that right at the start.

 

Alex:

There is a theme in your responses to me about me calling you insane. I don't recall doing that anywhere. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think you might be reading in something that isn't there (which isn't necessarily an insane thing to do, by the way).

In my experience, the term "white male" is not used exclusively in a hateful way. For instance, I see news reports where reporters say things like "A petrol station was robbed earlier today. Two men have been arrested and are assisting the police with their inquiries. Both are white 30-year-old males." I don't see anything racist in that. You might argue, I guess, that mentioning that they were white is unnecessary, but then so is mentioning their age and that they are male. Does that make the news report ageist and sexist as well as racist?

Why not just answer the question I asked you, rather than deflecting? How would you prefer that I refer to myself, if not as a "white male", if I want to describe myself accurately and concisely? If you're going to take me to task for using racist, offensive language, I hope you have a non-racist, inoffensive alternative in mind.

What I gave you was what I personally took away from your posts. In other words, I gave you my opinion. You are free, of course, to say that my opinion is unrealistic. You are free to accuse me of not being genuine too, I suppose, although that's not very nice of you. If I have misinterpreted your words, then surely we can talk until we're both on the same page? There's no need to get angry or accuse me of telling lies.

My impression - and it is only my impression, which could be wrong - is that you're upset at me (and others) because you think we're unfairly attacking poor little paddoboy for perfectly unremarkable behaviour that many people regularly engage in (e.g. addressing strangers of the opposite sex as "love"). My impression is that you regard this as bullying of paddoboy, and you think that we should be concentrating our attention on real criminals, such as perpetrators of domestic violence and the church and Hollywood, instead.

I applaud your concerns about domestic violence etc. However, I disagree with you that the existence of those other evils means that we should turn a blind eye to everyday sexism, which is the subject of this thread. What do you think about that?

(By the way, if you're advocating for the death penalty, then I oppose that, too, but that's another discussion.)

Right. So which individual matters more? The individual who means no harm when he calls the shop assistant "love", or the shop assistant herself, who would prefer not to have strange men addressing her that way? Will you defend the right of the strange man to use "love" as a form of address in that circumstance, regardless of what the woman would prefer? And if we don't know what the woman would prefer, what then? What's the best course of action? If we were to bear in mind that "it is an individual thing", as you point out, what then?

I'm not sure who you think my mob is, in this context, Alex. But if you say that everybody inhabits different groups, then you ought to accept that not everybody inhabits your mob, as well. In your mob, "white male" is racist and sexist. In mine, it doesn't seem to be. In my mob, calling the shop assistant "love" is sexist, patronising and possibly sleazy; in yours, maybe it isn't.

Now, personally, I don't think that all "mobs" are equal when it comes to their right to grab the high moral ground. That's because I think that certain moral standards ought to be universal. Of course, the ones I advocate are also the ones I try to apply amongst my own mob, so you might argue that it's all relative again. But if it's really all relative, then how can you complain about my criticism of paddoboy, for instance? Who's to say that he's right and I'm wrong? Maybe you're only saying that because his mob and your mob overlap or are the same or something.

The point is: if you're going to argue for moral relativism, you have to apply it consistently. If morality is all relative, then you're in no position to complain about my morality, any more than I'm in a position to complain about yours. Personally, I'm not a moral relativist.

Are you literally advocating "mob rule", then? Whatever the majority says must be right, at any given time? Surely not.

That's interesting. Which two simple tests should I apply?

Like I said, I'm not a moral relativist. I can't apologise for that. While I appreciate that people are imperfect, and while I also recognise that I'm in no way morally perfect either, I don't think that either of those things means I can never be in a position to judge somebody's behaviour as immoral.

But you're applying precisely that standard to one of your mob - paddoboy - aren't you? What makes you better than my mob?

If you really want to take this discussion of mobs further though, I think you should start by defining what you regard as my mob and your mob. What characteristics define the members of these mobs of yours?

When it comes to sexism, for me the relevant mob is the whole human race. I can't see a justification for applying different standards to different subsets of males, say. But maybe you can. Maybe standards ought to be different in Maroubra than in Brisbane, or wherever.

I don't know what you're talking about there.

Again, I'm not sure who my lot is, yet. Maybe you're thinking of city people in ivory towers who never go outside and mix with "real people", or something like that? People with too much book learnin' and not enough exposure to the school of hard knocks, perhaps? Is that the kind of box you're putting me in, Alex, based on what and how I write on this forum?

 

Seriously, where did I call you insane? I don't think you're insane. And even if you were, its unlikely it would be your fault.

What I try to do is to give people information. What they choose to do - or choose not to do - with that information is up to them. I like to think of myself as a realistic optimist, which means I usually hope for the best but expect less than the best. What really annoys me, though, is people who know better but who still choose to act poorly - especially ones who have had all the relevant information presented to them in an easily digestible form.

Asking you some questions is not equivalent to putting words into your mouth. Nor is telling you how your words affect me.

I think you're making unwarranted assumptions about me. When have I tried to box up the general community? Generally, I try to avoid dealing in stereotypes when I talk about and to people. Those stereotypes are undoubtedly there in general discourse, and there's often some truth behind a stereotype, too, but I'm pretty careful to always keep in mind that people are individuals and not just stereotypes.

I'm not sure why you assume I don't talk to people in the same way you do. What have I done to make you think I don't get out much in the community, or whatever it is you think about me?

I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. What gave you that impression about me? I live in a community, the same as you do. In fact, probably like you, I interact with a number of different communities. I have work colleagues. I have family connections. I have my neighbours, my friends, the people in the places where I shop, etc. etc. I also have online connections to people whom I rarely, if ever, see face to face. I watch the news. I follow politics. I watch sport. I read. I listen to music. I take public transport. I do all those things, just like you. Whatever gave you the impression that I have no experience with "real people"?

You're calling me out for opining that the term "white male" is not necessarily racist or sexist. Forgive me, but I don't feel very confronted by my own bigotry. Part of the problem is that you have yet to explain to me what it is that makes that term so offensive to you.

Meanwhile, you'll notice that I've explained in excruciating detail what is sexist and inappropriate about calling female shop assistants "love", for instance. I didn't think that would be necessary, but apparently even now paddoboy still can't see the problem. I'm not sure about you.

Possibly you've got the wrong end of the stick there.

It doesn't actually matter whether the particular shop assistant that paddoboy sleazed onto to ask for his extra virgin olive oil was offended. Maybe the real person involved thought paddoboy was just a harmless old duffer, or whatever. It's not actually about that. The question we should be asking is whether, as a general rule, an older male ought to make it a habit of addressing young female shop assistants as "love" and trying to flirt with them while they are doing their jobs and are obliged to be pleasant to the customers. (The answer to that question, in case there's still some doubt, is that the older male in question ought not to act like a sexist pig, as a general rule.)

No, you're wrong. There's a problem and we don't need direct evidence about him to recognise it. We can, for example, just listen to what women say about their experiences of everyday sexism, and their opinions of it, and their preferences about appropriate behaviour.

You have to believe me: everyday sexism is a problem and the world will be a better place once we dispense with it (or at least make it generally recognised as unacceptable behaviour).

 

Alex, the thing is: it's fine to make reasonable deductions about what a person is thinking, based on what they say or write and how they act. You shouldn't be scared of doing that. You shouldn't be scared of offending somebody by judging them based on their own behaviour. As I said previously, we can't see somebody's inner thoughts or intentions, but we can see the products of those. We see what they do, how they conduct themselves. We listen to what they say. We read what they write. Those are the only ways to tell what a person is thinking. Don't apologise for paying attention to people.

Only for certain crimes, murder being the classic example. Also, I might point out that, in a criminal trial, intent must always be inferred from evidence, which requires judging people on what they do, not on some inaccessible inner state they might have.

Nobody has accused paddoboy of a crime. He is not on trial. Nevertheless, we are doing what a jury would do - inferring intent from behaviour. One thing he certainly can't do (any more) is to plead innocence due to ignorance. What he does, from now on at least, he does knowingly.

I allege immorality, not a crime. One can't be blamed for immoral acts if one does not know they are immoral. But paddoboy can't make that excuse. He's been told exactly what's wrong with his activities. He has had plenty of time to think it over.

You mean the right to defend oneself, for instance? He's certainly exercising that right vigorously.

Ooh. I hope you're not trying to link your "white male" thing with paddoboy's sexism.

It sounds like you're saying that I am persecuting paddoboy because I hate white males and not because he's a male chauvinist. It would be odd for me as a self-identified white male to hate white males, I think, but I suppose it's a logical possibility.

Are you serious when you say you think that paddoboy is only coming in for criticism because he's a white male? Do you think that if he happened to be black I wouldn't be going so hard on him about sexism, perhaps? Or if he was a woman, maybe?

Basically, you're saying that I'm attacking him because I'm racist. And the same would go for others who are critical of him, like Bells and iceaura, for instance. Do I have that right?

But you will have seen how I urged paddoboy not to fire up after I pointed out his original sexist "joke". How I urged him to think carefully before inviting a closer examination of his behaviours. How I have, several times during the course of our discussions, invited him to step away and let things lie.

paddoboy wants to keep this going. This isn't about us bullying him. He's loving this. Can't you see that? He's proud of himself. He is unapologetic. He is a rock standing against the tide of change. He is a hero in his own mind.

I think it's mostly descriptive. I agree that it could be sexist and racist in the right context, but that applies to a lot of otherwise-innocent expressions.

That appears to be a new point you're making. You'd better explain it. From the context, I think you're probably saying that whenever we point out that it's mostly men harassing women rather than the other way around, that's sexist towards men, and therefore pointing out paddoboy's sexism is actually sexist towards him because he's a man. If that's what you're saying, I'd say it's a pretty screwy argument to try to make, but I'll wait for you to actually make it.

I'd like to see clear examples of such fraudulence, if you're alleging that.

Fine. Where did it happen?

What are you referring to? A link would be useful.

 

Then why do you keep referring to what you do outside of this forum as an excuse for your behaviour and continued sexual harassment of women?

Ya. I had made it abundantly clear that your behaviour was not acceptable and to stop.

You responded by calling me "girly" and then made even more inappropriate jokes.

So when you say that if a woman made it clear that it was unwelcomed, were you lying?

Because women on this site have made it abundantly clear that it is unwelcome, but you just can't stop making these inappropriate comments. It was like when you went on and on about your sexual prowess in another thread, and you were asked to stop repeatedly and you just could not stop. It's sexual harassment. And you still refused to stop.

Your little nicknames, it's not invited or wanted. And you are told it's not appropriate, but you keep doing it and you make sure it's more condescending by adding an emoticon with it.. Because you know, the condescending pet name was not enough..

You don't think harassing women on the street is an issue.

You don't even believe that sexual harassment is a thing. Which is why you keep telling us how you are groped, etc and it's why you keep up with the flirty and inappropriate behaviour even when you are told it's not appropriate.

You claim that you would stop if a woman indicated it wasn't welcome. Women on this site have told you it isn't appropriate. So why do you ignore them and keep doing it? When I told you that your comments about your sex life was not appropriate, why did you keep making more and more comments about it to me in one of our previous discussions about this?

In short, you refuse to listen when women tell you to back the hell off. You keep foisting yourself and your sexual innuendo, nicknames, etc onto us, even after we ask you to stop. And you keep boasting about how you do this to other women, young women in vulnerable positions who are unable to tell you to go away because they think you are a pervert. And then you start using words like how you and the women you sexually harass are consenting adults, and then admit that at least some of them are.. It's not appropriate. You are clearly aware that your innuendo is sexual in nature (hence the consenting adults comment from you).

You are a serial sexual harasser. You just think you can get away with it by calling it every day banter.