• Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s reductive to take that as saying “it’s more appropriate to hate on white people”. They worded it a bit poorly imo but the analogy they’re responding to is still crappy. There isn’t an issue of black women assuming white men don’t know the origins of RNA, but there is an issue of men assuming women don’t know anything about “nerdy” things like film. Obviously they assumed wrong with Ed Solomon, but the analogy is still in bad faith because it’s wouldn’t be for the same reason.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This specific situation described in this post is an issue of “women assuming that the man offering his take on a subject was ignorant about it and driven by machism” (as that’s exactly what they accused him off when they called his offer one of “mansplaining”).

      (In fact what makes this a bit of a story is that rather than just saying “No thanks”, they instead explicitly accused him of offering an ignorant opinion driven by sexist)

      Surelly both the “men assuming women don’t know anything about ‘nerdy’ things like film” and “women assuming that men offering their own take on a subject are ignorant and driven by sexism” are equally wrong?!

      How is instantly presuming such bad things about other people purelly on the basis of the number of Y chromossomes they were born with, less sexist if its acting/voicing prejudice (quite literally: they prejudged the other person) from XX persons towards XY persons than if it is from XY persons towards XX persons?

      It’s kinda the whole point of this whole comment thread: prejudice is prejudice and its discriminatory to excuse it for some people but not for others purelly on the bases of some having being born with certain characteristics and the others not.