[bobwaycott]

You're rather egregiously conflating distinct issues here. You're also committing petitio principii--i.e., begging the question. You assume your premise(s) is/are true and, therefore, your conclusion is true.

Laying out your initial logic, in order:

p1: A has power

p2: B has !power

p3: A exerts power

p4: B exerts !power

c: if p1 and p2, given p3 and p4: asymmetrical situation

Of course it is! And yet nothing is proven.

It sounds an awful lot like you're either intentionally or unwittingly advancing the logically and philosophically weak argument that [undesiredThing]ism = Prejudice + Power--formulated by Bidol, spread by Katz, cornerstone of Bell's Critical Race Theory, and subsumed by Crenshaw's middle-class-feminism+CRT intersectionality fusion--as if it is inherently true and proven. There are myriad problems with that equation.

This maxim has seen a surge in the last couple years as online blogging has massively repeated it ad infinitum. People encounter it and walk away, impressed that they just reduced [undesiredThing]ism to a neat equation proving racism/sexism/Xism only exists at the intersection of prejudice X and [some kind of problematically defined] power.

And yet this has been repeatedly and adequately contested, while the CRT/intersectionality adherents keep moving the goal posts from one form of power to another over the last few decades (they appear to have, for the time being, settled on institutional power).

Again, your logic, as offered (filling in the latent assumptions):

x: ethnic+sexual group

y: involuntary genetic membership in x

z: x historically exerted most institutional/structural power

p1: power is y + z

p2: if p1, sexism is prejudice/bigotry/discrimination against a person based on sex + offender possessing p1

p3: A committed action X against B because of B's gender

p4: B committed action X against A because of A's gender

c1: given p3 and p4, instance-level act is same

p5: if p1, and A has y + z, A has power

p6: if p1, and B has y + !z, B has !power

p7: 'structural level' sexism is caused/reinforced by p2

c2: if p2 and p5, given p3, A is guilty of p2

c3: if p2 and p6, given p4, B is not guilty of p2

c4: if p7, given c2, A causes/proves p7

Does that make things clearer? There are only about a half-dozen premises there that need actual proving.

Oh, also, fwiw, and I'm being pedantic here: saying sexism is sexism--especially after the lengths to which I've gone to actually define sexism--is in no way an equivocation. I do not use ambiguous language; nor do I prevaricate.

[flaviusb]

To be pedantic: 'begging the question' is when you import your conclusion into your premises, not when you show that the logical task has been satisfied but merely assume that the material task has been satisfied. Your identification of the problems with my informal reasoning is likewise totally wrong.

Your attempt at informal logic is also pretty laughable. I'll try to give a better response than this tomorrow though in another reply, as you seem to be actually engaging with this, which is actually super awesome (it also doesn't hurt that my degrees were in Logic, and I hardly ever get to bust that stuff out in forum comments).

[bobwaycott]

Well, I would certainly expect the 'attempt at informal logic is ... laughable'. I wrote it to be ridiculous.

I guess I shouldn't have bothered with the reply, as it appears to have triggered a pissing contest over Logic technicalities. Or perhaps you think a dispute on mechanics is going to erase the problems inherent in the idea that selective power assignments to individual agents based on uncontrolled genetic factors is required to determine whether or not an act of sexism is verifiable sexism.

The efforts to redefine sexism/racism/etc as power-dependent are philosophically problematic. I'm rather uncertain we'd get anywhere on the issue.

[flaviusb]

Okay, so you make an argument, when I say it is wrong and that I am going to critique it formally you say that 'of course it was wrong, I wrote it to be ridiculous' because apparently responding to what you are saying and not just accepting it is 'starting a logic pissing contest', then you go on to reassert the thing that you have not proved where the only argument you have made for it is laughable... fuck off troll.

edit: Also you mischaracterise my entire point. Not surprising given your sloppy thinking. It isn't anything to do with 'whether an act of sexism is verifiable sexism'. It also isn't 'power dependent' - power is only an aspect or manifestation of structure that is easy to talk about. You'll note (if you can read) that in the post where I discuss power I have first an example of a simple non-symmetrical situation that is analogous to sexism (to do with exerting power), then I talk about sexism. I have nowhere said that institutional sexism is solely about power differentials or power relations.

[bobwaycott]

> fuck off troll ... sloppy thinking ... if you can read ...

You might find people more willing to engage in discussion if you didn't resort to abusive language in nearly every comment you've posted to HN.

[flaviusb]

Thank you for your kind advice. I think that you are utterly mistaken, as you will note (if you actually go through my comment history and read the comments I am replying to) that I respond to comments (or comment threads) where people show that they are sloppy thinkers, subliterate morons, shitheads or trolls (and thus already not engaging or being incapable of engaging) by insulting them, but I do not respond to reasonable comments or comment threads this way. The reason for the preponderance of insulting prose in my comments is the fact that most of the people I respond to on HN very quickly show that they are sloppy thinkers, subliterate morons, shitheads or trolls, as you have done in this thread.

However, I could be the one who is mistaken, so I will see if being more civil in future actually works, and somehow magically cures people of being sloppy thinkers, subliterate morons, shitheads or trolls.