Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want to talk about the type of sexism also often refereed to as "institutional sexism" But I was not talking about institutional sexism. Sexism can be individual (and often is), but unlike misogyny it does not imply disdain towards women; simply behavior (that can feel neutral or even positive) that results in increasing the imbalance of power. > But "sexism" is an overloaded term whether you want it to be o…
You can't claim that physicists' definition of energy is unclear merely because it is also used colloquially to mean other things No, but I also don't see lab scientists bustle when they're in a conversation where it's used colloquially.
I would, however, note that a physicist would bustle if someone tried to use the word energy with a different meaning when trying to understand a physical process. In this case, the only way to understand what it is that feminists want when it comes to sexism, is to understand what we mean when we use the word, which is also its academic meaning. For example, if you think feminists are against sexism (which we are), but also understand sexism to mean "treating men and women differently", then you'd be completely confused as to our goals. Perhaps you'd think that our goal is to erase the differences between the sexes. That would indeed be a silly goal, and you may be right in getting angry that intelligent people think such rubbish. While in fact, our goal is very clear: correct the gross imbalance of power between the sexes. To achieve that, we seek to uncover the mechanism which perpetuates it, which we call sexism. Thankfully, the academic community has been studying sexism for a few decades, and we now know a thing or two about it.
No reason to be angry. In fact, if you understood what feminists mean when we say sexism (which hopefully you now do), I think you'd be far less angry.