To some circles, you're sexist if you believe men and women are different at all. I call bs, we are inherently different in some ways. call me sexist if you like.
To the rest of the circles, you're sexist if you put any stock in any of what are usually considered negative stereotypes about women. (the key being for example if you believe women are more kind than men, that is not branded sexist!) This is ridiculous as well, imho. It's like the stereotypes about blacks and guns. Some rapper was arrested a few years ago for having a bunch of guns in his car, and he screams 'you racists'. Dude. You had guns in the car, if anything you're literally living up to the stereotype you're complaining about. You can't complain about being profiled in regards to 'riding dirty' if you were in fact 'riding dirty', imho.
I'm usually pretty bad at illustrating this half of the argument, but as unpopular as it may make me I believe many stereotypes are based on a truth. To apply them to ALL MEMBERS of the group is folly, but the inverse is also true- to assume that it applies to NO MEMBERS of the group, or even ALMOST NO MEMBERS of the group, is folly as well.
I should perhaps start constructing a counter-offense argument... after all, have you considered that the belief that women as a rule do NOT like being a little bit exhibitionist could also be considered sexist?
On the contrary, I don't think it's thrown around nearly often enough, at least in the tech/entrepreneurial community. In the name of rejecting political correctness, the cultural norm has swung in the complete opposite direction -- and virtually no one has been willing to speak out for putting the brakes on. (Those who do seem to end up branded a pariah or whiner.) Top tip: we can enjoy freedom of speech and insist upon basic politeness from our peers; they aren't mutually exclusive.
---
As to your anecdote: So, you're a racist too?
(The above was mostly tongue in cheek, but consider...) :
- There's no law against gun ownership -- the right to bear arms is a guaranteed one -- so why is the fact that this guy had guns named as if it were a valid cause for his arrest? Somehow I have trouble imagining stories of Jeff Foxworthy, a famous white man with a 'redneck' stereotype, being arrested "for having guns in his car" being passed around with the same tone of smug judgement.
- Don't forget the history of racist double standards when it came to black gun ownership in America, both recent and (comparatively) ancient. Nor the fact that law enforcement is often anything but colorblind.
I forget the details of the arrest, but there are plenty of reasons possessing a gun is illegal. Don't immediately assume he was innocent and rule out the possibilities that concealment laws or registration laws didn't come into play. Maybe he didn't violate any laws after all, but that wasn't his defense so it seems irrelevant to the topic.
I am not being smug or judgemental, and I wouldn't have batted an eye or cared in the least, if he hadn't tried to play the racism card. Maybe it's foolish of me, but let me try to illustrate with a more extreme example.
Suppose a black man was to commit some heinous crime, and we had irrefutable proof he was completely guilty (just suppose, bear with me). Normally, he'd be tried and put away. But what if this black man's defense was 'well, I was being profiled- if it wasn't for the stereotype that blacks are more violent and commit more crimes, I wouldn't have been caught so clearly this is unfair. I should go free.'
IMHO, you can file complaints and suits and get all the damages you like for being unfairly profiled, and I'll generally back you up, but as soon as you're guilty of what they profiled you for, you loose all my support and earn my disgust. He may be right, maybe through racism we catch more guilty blacks than whites or something, but either way the hypothetical man is guilty. The way to fix that flaw is not let him go but start catching the whites too.
re: double standards and corrupt law enforcement, I'll give you that.
A) There's two issues here: whether the incident was racism, and whether the retelling you gave was, due to the assumptions it carried. I was addressing the latter.
B) Of course you were being judgemental; the entire point was to communicate your judgement of the situation as a flagrant race card play. Smug is in the eye of the beholder; I'm certain it wasn't intentional.
C) Re: hypo. It can be true that he is guilty and that he was persecuted due to racism at the same time. Not mutually exclusive; just as in another situation someone fully guilty may be proven so by an illegal search. Its up to the courts to decide whether the violation of equality would prevent a conviction. (Currently: racism no; illegal search yes.)
D) Would you hold the same position if the crime was possession of a recreational amount of marijuana?
