⚠ 🐲 Sexism/Racism/Otherism Among Marginalized Groups 🐲 ⚠

Because the need to actively shun them versus selecting and choosing at will.

You miss the point between preference and “minorities need not waste my time”.

Your expression is the issue here.


It’s obvious that you don’t care how you treat other people. The difference between preference and mistreatment is how it is externalized.

The topic being discussed, “NO FATS NO FEMMES NO ASIANS” as a stated warning makes someone a garbage human.

Maybe that’s not you, in which case why are you arguing about something irrelevant to your life? But if so, you have some serious empathy problems to work out. Free self-expression and statements of preference also reflect who you are inside, and we are entirely free to judge you for what you say. How you choose to express yourself is entirely about your values, not who you love (or are trying to bring home, whatever.)


The one potentially interesting difference with ‘the gay community’(in addition to the usual factors by which everyone picks up their particular prejudices) is that they aren’t necessarily driven by sexual interest to interact with members of an out-group.

This is hardly to say that heterosexuals are induced to be nice by their tastes(indeed, as most frats-in-the-news stories suggest, sometimes its closer to a state of war than anything else); but they do have to do something if they want to get laid, establish a family/household/etc. Depending on the circumstances, this can involve overt exploitation and violence with a suitably grim justifying mythology; it can involve some vaguely benevolent application of strictly stereotyped gender roles; or it can involve attempts to associate on relatively equal terms; but it isn’t really optional(especially in cultures where homosocial interaction is prized; but requires regular proof that you aren’t being gay about your close homosocial interactions).

Homosexuals obviously aren’t going to be able to avoid running into people who make up ~50% of the population from time to time; but they do have the option of homosocial institutions that also encompass their members’ sexual activities. This doesn’t define what the outcome will be in terms of prejudice, beliefs on gender roles, etc. will be; but it is a pretty major difference in terms of how much more-or-less-non-optional interaction there is going to be; and your attitudes about the people you need to be able to deal with are often quite different from the ones it is more or less optional to deal with.

This doesn’t necessarily mean ‘better’ or ‘worse’; but it probably is a recipe for ‘different’ in terms of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors between sexes.

(It’s hardly a direct analogy; but there are certain similarities in comparing race relations in the ‘deep south’ to various areas of the north and west: the south certainly worked to earn its dire reputation; but attempts to build a racial caste system also left it with a great deal of interracial interaction. The economic and demographic situation simply don’t allow for much else. Doesn’t mean it has to be amicable; but it isn’t really optional. In areas of the north and west, you don’t have the whole ‘explicitly hearkening back to the good old days of the caste system’ thing; but because absolute numbers are smaller, and many of them comparatively recent arrivals or descendants of those and in geographically segregated areas, it’s very possible to have little or no interaction; and as the really, really, ugly incidents that sprang up around school bussing and the like showed, strongly prefer it that way and drop all pretense of more-or-less benign neglect if circumstances try to change that.)

1 Like

Okay, I’m having a hard time parsing that; some of your phrasing is awkward (“suitably grim justifying mythology”) and you’re using a lot of technical language, but let me see if I got it.

Yes, I know, pot, kettle, etc.

Are you saying that straight guys/gals have a sexual incentive to establish some kind of social rules, either formal or informal, to deal with the opposite gender? And that, absent that incentive, gay folks can trend towards a more gender-insulated and less diverse community, which can lead to discrimination and bigotry against people outside of that community?

If that’s not what you’re trying to say, I’m having a hard time reading it (and I’m feeling a sudden empathy for people who have to read my own writing). If I got it wrong, can you please simplify your language for those of us without a background in sociology?

(ETA: I’ve already edited this once, and I still think it has a bit of a hostile tone, and I can’t figure out how to fix that. Please be assured: I feel no hostility towards you or what you posted; I honestly am simply curious to know if I’ve interpreted your point correctly.)

Sorry, I have a tendency to get tripped up on verbosity that passes the ‘makes sense to me’ test but probably not much more.(I had a teacher who said “You write like a german philosopher. That is not a compliment.” Great guy, and he had a point.)

That said, your summary mostly captures my point(and far more comprehensibly, thank you). [quote=“nimelennar, post:24, topic:78612”]
Are you saying that straight guys/gals have a sexual incentive to establish some kind of social rules, either formal or informal, to deal with the opposite gender? And that, absent that incentive, gay folks can trend towards a more gender-insulated and less diverse community, which can lead to discrimination and bigotry against people outside of that community?

The only thing I would change is that I’m not saying that the ‘insular’ case necessarily contributes to more bigotry; or the mixed-sex case to less; just that the two situations lead to different necessary interactions.

When you pretty much have to deal with somebody to fulfill basic economic or lifecycle requirements, your relationship with them is going to be different than if your interaction with them is mostly optional or casual. Sometimes different is worse, sometimes different is better, sometimes it’s just different.

In this case, I mentioned homosexuals because sex and gender are two big areas for Other-ism; and homosexuals are a marginalized group that(pretty much by definition) have interaction with the opposite sex as closer to optional than to mandatory; so they are the marginalized group that seems particularly likely to have atypical(sometimes better, sometimes worse, sometimes just different) attitudes in terms of sexism and similar issues in a way that members of an unpopular religion or people with a disliked skin tone would not.

I apologize for being vague and cryptic, it’s both a personal weakness and a reflection of the fact that, while I think there are good reasons to expect homosexuals to skew unusual in terms of attitudes on sex and gender; any more detail than that really depends on circumstances.


In this case, I mentioned homosexuals because sex and gender are two big areas for Other-ism

Is “Other-ism” even a thing? Sounds like Cultural Marxist pseudo intellectual prattle to me.

You are looking for that other thread, Sup Marxists?.


I’m not quite sure what ‘cultural marxism’ is; but I was just using it as a catch all( essentially *ism if using regular expressions in natural language weren’t a bit…off) for all the various 'ism’s coined for various flavors of disliking assorted groups.

So, anyway, what is this cultural marxism stuff? I must have missed Das Kapital’s section on identity politics or something…

1 Like

Right? Like OMG! It’s so offensive I’ve reverted to Valley Girl!


I’m still waiting for anyone of you self righteous busy bodies to explain why you are allowed to stick your nose into other peoples bedroom politics…

Or even demonstrate a modicum of understanding of gay sexual martket place activity and hook up apps…

I’m still waiting for anyone to say anything remotely like what you imagine you’re arguing with.


So what do you believe they are saying, and why do you believe that it is not telling other people what they should be doing with their sex lives?

I’ve already laid out the “sexual racism” argument, which has a soft and hard version, above.

Please refer to these in your repsonse instead of making groundless accusations.

Can you point to the general direction where you thing the thing you’ve been offended by “them” is? Because I’m so not seeing it that it’s somehow invisible.


Actually it was your friend who says she has reverted to Valley Girl because her feel feels have been “like you know, soooo offended, right”?

Again nemomen, please refer to the above post where I lay out the “sexual racism” argument and why it falls flat.

Thanks, we’re done here. Bye.


Sexism/Racism/Otherism Among Marginalized Groups

Marginalized? You mean the rabbits in the margins of medieval manuscripts?

Yeah, They did seem pretty suspect.

Wait… what?


It’s amazing all the busy bodies on here keen to stick their nose into other peoples bedrooms all under the pretense of fighting “oppression and stuff”.

I wouldn’t know. Apparently I’m blocked from seeing them on this forum.

Stupid Edge browser.


A dragon icon and a warning sign have appeared at the top of this thread.

I think I have infuriated all the busy bodies…

That was me. Just giving people advanced warning of the meltdown.