Why Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned is sexist

[BainsBane]

130. The idea that there is something "weak" about recognizing sexism is absurd

silence is not strength. Accepting inequality is not strength. To listen to some here, thousands of academics who work in gender studies and discourse or semiotic analysis are weak because they explore the gendered use of language. It's is not a question of being easily offended. It is a matter of awareness, of seeing. I saw that OP early today before Cali commented, and while I wasn't offended I did mentally note the use of a sexist phrase. I understand Cali's reaction because she is just starting to notice what is all around us. As someone eloquently pointed out in another thread, once you see, you cannot unsee. Some chose not to see. In fact, some are invested in not only not seeing themselves, but ensuring others remain blinded.

We see the same arguments in discussions about rape and domestic violence. They insist speaking about such crimes on this message board is "playing victim." Pointing out sexism or misogyny of any kind is "playing victim." They insist feminists such as myself and the rest of the evil HOF focus on unimportant matters. Yet I couldn't help but observe that when the issue of the Hobby Lobby decision came up, the same people who continually tell us how we focus on the trivial couldn't be bother to talk about a decision that instituted legal discrimination against women, if they weren't, like one recently banned troll, busy telling us how unimportant it is. Was that also trivial? Or are those of us who protest that decision also playing victim?

Speaking out against power, whether that be through a SCOTUS ruling, rape culture, or language (because as Michael Foucalt points out, "language is power') is not playing victim. Accommodating injustice is not strength. It is the opposite.

I'm not sure what the point of arguing that there was something trivial about Cali's reaction, given the PM that AAO sent to her. Clearly the man is a misogynist, and his PM confirmed it. She caught a glimpse of him through that phrase that others insist she should not have seen. She should not have commented on it. Well she did comment, and she was right. His word choice and, more importantly, reaction to concerns about it, were indicative of a far more serious contempt for women.