Yes it can, in the context of a specific case. In the case of a school club, say, a man (case A) and woman (case B) can be discriminated against with the same force, albiet in different ways within the walls of the club (A or B), because social groups can have different rules than wider society.
In the same way that being white in some countries makes you a minority that is being discriminated against, whereas in others you’re not.
The fact the woman gets discriminated against more outside the club is important, but it doesn’t make the discrimination better or more excusable in the case of the man being discriminated against.
Yeah, I just disagree, I agree it’s different, obviously, but it’s certainly comparable and not understandable.
When does “members of this group of people have wronged me in the past” become “It’s more acceptable to discriminate against people of that group”? Seriously.
I deeply disagree with the idea that bigotry is somehow different when stripped of power. I can extend a bit more tolerance for that sort of behavior, but it’s still just as reprehensible.
I can comprehend it, but calling it understandable and different in the way that you did frames it as somehow less bad. The individual person is not “their oppressors”. That’s the part I disagree with.
I think you’d balk at someone saying that someone being racist was “understandable” because there was a black gang active where they grew up.
I think misandry is less bad than misogyny, as in it does less harm because of the way our systems are set up in a patriarchal society, but that doesn’t mean my belief is that misandry is good.
I think you’d balk at someone saying that someone being racist was “understandable” because there was a black gang active where they grew up.
That makes sense, I think things like misandry are as harmful as things like misogyny on a case-by-case basis when removed from context, but of course misogyny is far more harmful overall, unless I’m stupid that seems to be what you’re also saying.
For the understandable thing I was working with this definition:
Expected or accepted under the circumstances.
Which I would disagree with, but I think you were working off of this one:
That makes sense, I think things like misandry are as harmful as things like misogyny on a case-by-case basis when removed from context, but of course misogyny is far more harmful overall, unless I’m stupid that seems to be what you’re also saying.
It could be (not taking a side on whether it is) a difference in degree rather than kind. The effect would still be markedly different in many cases (being excluded from a bathroom is annoying, being excluded from nearly every bathroom is a different matter entirely), but that doesn’t mean the intent isn’t similar.
It literally can’t be with the same force because those minorities are not in positions of power the way that the larger majority is.
Yes it can, in the context of a specific case. In the case of a school club, say, a man (case A) and woman (case B) can be discriminated against with the same force, albiet in different ways within the walls of the club (A or B), because social groups can have different rules than wider society.
In the same way that being white in some countries makes you a minority that is being discriminated against, whereas in others you’re not.
The fact the woman gets discriminated against more outside the club is important, but it doesn’t make the discrimination better or more excusable in the case of the man being discriminated against.
Do you get what I mean?
I didn’t say it was excusable, I said it was different and understandable.
Do you get what I mean?
Yeah, I just disagree, I agree it’s different, obviously, but it’s certainly comparable and not understandable.
When does “members of this group of people have wronged me in the past” become “It’s more acceptable to discriminate against people of that group”? Seriously.
I deeply disagree with the idea that bigotry is somehow different when stripped of power. I can extend a bit more tolerance for that sort of behavior, but it’s still just as reprehensible.
You don’t find it understandable why people from an oppressed group might harbor ill feelings toward their oppressors?
I’m not saying agree with or find it acceptable - you can’t even wrap your head around why?
I can comprehend it, but calling it understandable and different in the way that you did frames it as somehow less bad. The individual person is not “their oppressors”. That’s the part I disagree with.
I think you’d balk at someone saying that someone being racist was “understandable” because there was a black gang active where they grew up.
I think misandry is less bad than misogyny, as in it does less harm because of the way our systems are set up in a patriarchal society, but that doesn’t mean my belief is that misandry is good.
Understandable is not the same as excusable.
That makes sense, I think things like misandry are as harmful as things like misogyny on a case-by-case basis when removed from context, but of course misogyny is far more harmful overall, unless I’m stupid that seems to be what you’re also saying.
For the understandable thing I was working with this definition:
Which I would disagree with, but I think you were working off of this one:
Which, if you were, I agree with you.
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Yep we’re on the same page now.
It could be (not taking a side on whether it is) a difference in degree rather than kind. The effect would still be markedly different in many cases (being excluded from a bathroom is annoying, being excluded from nearly every bathroom is a different matter entirely), but that doesn’t mean the intent isn’t similar.
I think the intent is different between the two. It makes much more sense for an oppressed group to hate their oppressors.