Sol Invictus wrote:Even microagression requires passive aggression and intent.
No, they don't. That's rather the point. Often, in fact, they result from intentions not
to discriminate. That's one of the things that makes them so difficult to deal with, since any reaction at all is likely to be read as an "overreaction" (or "whining") and lead to further characterisation of the affected party as "unreasonable" or even "hysterical". (This site
goes further into the concept and provides copious examples. I daresay some will be recognisable to you.)
Sol Invictus wrote:What you are talking about is a mix of dated concepts and stereotyping that are not intentionally used to belittle women, but in many cases are well intentioned and some women may even welcome them. A calm discussion comparing different opinions on them might do more to break them than getting pissed when somebody complies with them
I think we all agree that getting pissed isn't an ideal response. But again--as I think Varislintu explained well--sometimes it's the best response you can muster. And when presented with that response, you have the choice to be dismissive or to be empathetic. My radical assertion is that when you're standing on the upper end of the power differential, there's an onus on you to choose empathy.
Sol Invictus wrote:I actually pointed out some examples, if you do not consider that sexism and don't see how it has emerged out of fight for women's rights, I don't think I'll be able to convince you
We've already established that I do not consider feminism to be "sexism", so if your goal is to convince me otherwise then the discussion is probably at a dead end.
Before I give up on it, however, I'd like to make one point clear, and that's that making a claim is not remotely the same thing as proving
it. You asserted that complaints which you characterise as "whining" can result in demands you consider "sexist". The problem isn't just that you haven't presented good evidence for either of these characterisations, it's that you haven't demonstrated how one thing leads to the other. All you're really saying is "these are two things I associate with feminism that I think are bad so one must cause the other". If you can't see the problem with that
argument then we really are done here.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons