Debate Day

Debate 5A--The Second Sexism--Slides
Debate 5B--Male Privilege--Slides

Study Guide for the final is at the tab above and also at Canvas (on the home page).

Tommy Curry on Black Males

Intersectionality (Kimberle Crenshaw--video), three points:

1. People who are black and female are doubly disadvantaged
• People who are black and male are both disadvantaged and privileged
2. Problems at intersection of black and female can be invisible
3. A mix of features can create advantages/disadvantages that are not associated with either feature

Tommy Curry's critique of intersectionality--

1. In combination with being black, being male creates vulnerability, not privilege
• there is toxic, patriarchal, hegemonic masculinity (white + male)
• there are other masculinities (black + male, brown + male)
2. Black males are actually worse off than black females

Interview with Tommy Curry

• about his book The Man-Not and a NYT study.  (recommended, especially for debaters)
• We'll watch the first 20 minutes (debaters may want to watch the rest). 
• Tone quality gets worse and worse--sorry about that!

Digby vs. Benatar

Today's material is on the whiteboard.  Interested in how Benatar responded to Digby's objections?  See here.

***

Clarifications:

It's not great being a man!
Digby is not saying it's hunky dory being a man. There are lots of disadvantages to being a man (he affirms Benatar's list), and we should make changes. However, men are not victims of sexism or discrimination.

What is sexism or sexist discrimination?
In section 6, Digby says (in so many words):

For X to be a victim of sexist discrimination, all of these conditions must be met:

1. X is treated differently based on sex, but sex is irrelevant to the job, position, resource, or whatever. (This is Benatar's whole definition of sexist discrimination.)  
2. The treatment of X goes beyond the warrior/procreation patterns that are part of our evolution and history.
3. The treatment of X is done by a Y, not an X.
4. The treatment of X involves stigmatizing, devaluing, and disempowering Xs.

Example: It's 1970 and John is subject to the draft, while his equally capable sister Joan is not. Is this sexist discrimination against John?

Diagnosis: condition 1 is met, but not conditions 2-4.  So not sexist discrimination.

Making a "proves too much" objection.  Digby is trying to argue that John is not a victim of sexism or discrimination.  The objection is that his definition is also going to make it very unusual for women to be victims of sexism or discrimination.

In which of these three examples are all four conditions met?

Example 1: Joan voluntarily joins the army and wants to play a combat role, but that's prohibited.  

Example 2: Alice applies for a job but isn't interviewed because she's pregnant and has two other small children. A man with a baby on the way and two small children would be interviewed.

Example 3:  The male leaders of a church hire men as pastors but not women.