you realise that in your interaction with sleepnoises you havent given any actual basis for your argument, while they went into historical grounds, that to me it seems like they clearly researched, for theirs. you just say they have confirmation bias and then make a comparison to numerology which doesnt actually prove anything except that it proves to me that you seem unwilling to critically reflect on your own internalised biases and behaviours. sexism (and the other things you mentioned as examples) ARE everywhere, and analysing and pointing it out, even if it makes you uncomfortable, seems to me to be the best way to actually try and detangle these patterns, not dismissing every mention of it and saying ‘well this is why women dont want to be called feminists’. wow maybe that in and of itself is a bigger issue. why are more women happy to joke about girl dinner and girl maths than to call themselves a feminist? better for them to lead small quiet lives (and make beautiful art of course) than to get mad and at least TRY to point these things out. just let people enjoy things ^-^
i think you sound dismissive and annoying and honestly a bit hypocritical. you say they have a confirmation bias yet also say that by ending the argument and ‘locking everything down’ they dont have a lot of evidence and must not have a strong argument. how is that not looking for a reason why youre right and theyre wrong? (which, btw, blocking you or locking the post sounds to me like a healthy boundary, internet arguing with someone who seems to just want to point fingers isnt a very good use of time or energy. which of course is why i should not be writing this at all but it pissed me off enough, i think it was the comparison to stupid fucking numerology that did it. way to take women seriously)
Okay, firstly let me say I commend you for saying something that isn't an insult! Congratulations, you left the echo chamber.
Now, as to the actual meat of your still anonymous ask... Consider yourself lucky. Normally, I don't respond to anonymous questions clearly meant to try and denigrate with anything other than sarcastic humor. But, you're making an attempt, at least, to try and have a discussion, so I'll reward the effort.
Now firstly, let me say that the idea of their post being 'historically grounded' was laughable. Because most of it was just saying that sexism is everywhere, and if you can't see it, you're a part of the problem. The little bit of historical reference they did go into was...
"almost all woman textile workers throughout history were not hobbyists. pre-industrial revolution, they were providing a vital household function. after the industrial revolution, they were experiencing various nasty factory injuries (while providing a vital household function of... money). women were also blocked from joining most textile-related professional guilds in europe"
Now, firstly, let's start with 'almost all women textile workers throughout history were not hobbyists'.
Leaving aside that 'hobbies' are indeed a relatively new thing... Pre-industrial revolution, every member of the household typically contributed in some way to the actual production of household use 'textile' use. Aka, it was an incredibly time consuming, difficult, and even physically demanding task that required an entire household to achieve. This idea that only women could sew clothes, or spin wool, is laughably, provably false on its face.
Point of fact, in the medieval era 'spinning wool' was considered often to be a job for children. In some cultures, it was actually jobs for the shepherds who watched the sheep, because it was something that could be done without much attention having to be paid to it. But prior to that? It was the men who did the sheering, and often times, much of the initial 'processing'. While the act of actually turning those clothes into cloth was often -in medieval Europe anyway -typically the domain of the woman, much of the process to get it to a point where it could be turned into cloth was a family affair.
Now, during the industrial revolution, yes, women did indeed typically work in the 'spinning factories'. And yes, they faced horrible workplace injury rates... just like everybody, regardless of gender, did in the vast majority of factories for anything. It was a very dangerous thing, to be a factory worker. Even leaving out the absolutely atrocious air conditions that frequently led to respiratory illnesses, the 'group' with the most injuries was, in fact, children. Not men. Not women. Children were small enough to climb into the machines, to see what was wrong, to get things unstuck, etc., and led to a truly staggering amount of children missing limbs.
But even then... this applied to anyone working in a factory. One county, in 1907, reported a casual 195 deaths of men in steel factories. Not injuries... deaths. For a single county. All factory work in those days was dangerous work; not just 'textiles because we don't care about the womenz'.
Now, moving on from their only historical reference into your actual post...
I responded to their post saying that 'some of the most brilliant artists in the world live quiet and happy lives and leave behind pure magic' is sexist by saying that it's not inherently sexism; because many people forget that art comes in many forms that most people don't even consider art, even if we find it beautiful to look at. That most people get caught up in paintings, or sculptures, and we completely miss that many people create art, not for profit, but just because we enjoy making it.
They responded by saying I'm suffering from internalized sexism, because I refuse to acknowledge that a compliment saying that some of the most brilliant artists aren't famous is sexist.
Now, I'm sure if you spend approximately 30 seconds thinking about it, you'll see how that logic -that if you don't agree, you're suffering from internalized something -is incredibly problematic. Because I could say that by refusing to acknowledge my point, they're suffering from internalized misanthropy -a general hatred of humanity in general. By sending me this, you're suffering from an internalized fear of being wrong. To which you could counter that me saying you have an internalized fear of being wrong means that I have an internalized fear of backing down. To which I could respond that you have an internalized fear of...
Now, unfortunately for you, actual adults can't function like that. The world can't function like that. You saying a thing is a thing, just because you say it's a thing, doesn't, in fact, make a thing a thing. Just like me saying a thing is a thing, doesn't make it a thing.
It's why accusations have to be made using logic, examples, and data. Not, well, I don't like it, so it's bad. It's why arguments like that -I don't like it, so it's bad -aren't allowed in actual debates. Which is a skill that the last few generations are sorely lacking, and holy hell does it show.
Now, as to the rest of your argument... just let people enjoy the thing... The OP couldn't let 'people enjoy the thing'. They had to rush in and say that people offering compliments are sexist. Is that just letting people enjoy the thing?
Or is it only allowable to 'enjoy the thing' when it's you doing the enjoying?
(Also, I do apologize for the delay in response, I am at work, and actually had to get up and go do work for a hot minute).