Since this point has apparently become my pet issue around here, I’ll bite. Is "that’s gay"impossible to pigeonhole? What about “faggot?” “Cunt?” “Nigger?”
You don’t dispute that the word unambiguously referred to females only for a very long time, right?
And specifically it connoted a nasty unpleasant woman. So the word bitch is heavily laden with specifically anti-feminine trappings. Agreed?
So tell me, what is the big deal, and why is there an argument, over the notion that we ought to examine the attitude behind the use of a word, even if it’s used in reference to a guy in one particular instance? The word’s meaning hasn’t changed, only its applicability. It retains the lineage of female dog –> nasty unpleasant woman, otherwise it would be entirely devoid of meaning, because it’s still used to connote the same attitude. You’re being a bitch means you’re acting like a vicious unpleasant woman means you’re acting like a dog in heat. And you’re sure there’s nothing there that contributes to or is rooted in a negative perception of women?
How is it more valid for you to “know when you see it” that it isn’t actually carrying an anti-feminine undertone, regardless of the particular target it’s used against, than it is for a woman to “know when she sees it” that a word that has always, and still does, mean something very misogynist, is contributing to misogyny when it’s used thoughtlessly?
If it’s historically ordnance leveled particularly against women, why is it so offensive to you when a woman objects to its continued use as a weapon of any kind?
What are you trying to prove? In the majority of family court proceedings in the UK and US the default is to award custody of the child to the mother. We’re all even now, so why should this be the case? I’ve read that Australia has recently changed the way that their family courts operate to take into account the needs of fathers. Apparently other western countries are still living in the 1950s.
It happens way more often than you might think. There are a lot of reasons this might seem like an anomaly instead of a demographic trend.
One reason can best be exemplified by the majority response of the therapists I have had throughout the years. Something to the effect of, ‘‘Wow, I’m so impressed you’re not a crack whore!’’ People who experience this thing often don’t have the opportunities I have had for upward mobility, they don’t always achieve the level of consciousness I gained about the dysfunction of my situation, and even if they do, the rarely out themselves. Women in these tragic situations are often the most marginalized, and they are too busy struggling to survive to find a voice or raise consciousness about these issues. Nobody is seeking out their voices either. To put it bluntly, nobody gives a shit about poor minority women or white trash. Their experiences are excised from the public discussion.
Furthermore, it’s just not something discussed in polite society. People get uncomfortable about these ‘‘personal’’ things. I tend to view my experience within the larger social context so I feel I might as well exercise my privilege to raise consciousness about a social problem through the lens of my own experience. There are many voices, too many voices, that go unheard.
I really want to make it clear that when I talk about the oppression of women, I’m not really interested in placing blame. You seem, Justin, to think that acknowledging systemic discrimination against women is the same thing as saying that men are evil, or that we have vast numbers of men intentionally trying to degrade women. I don’t believe that at all. Sexism, like racism, is a systemic problem that does not require ill-intent to be perpetuated. All it requires is a lack of intervention.
Much as people of all races fail to acknowledge the possibility that they might be capable of racist action, many men and women alike fail to acknowledge when their ideas or attitudes might be sexist. ‘‘Pussy-whipped,’’ for example, is most definitely a word with sexist connotations. It implies first that the most relevant part of a man’s girlfriend is her vagina, and second that there is something shameful about ceding any degree of power to a woman.
I hear it used most often when a man chooses to do something with his girlfriend instead of his friends. So there is a pretty heavy intimation that the only possible reason that a man would prefer the company of a woman to another man is if he’s getting a piece of ass.
The use of this term is not exclusive to men. I myself have quite a filthy mouth and have referred to cowards as ‘‘pussies’’ before. That’s sexist. That’s me, a woman, blithely accepting the sexist notion that women are weak.
Rather than getting all defensive about it, the best I can do is acknowledge the cultural context from whence it came and challenge the assumptions upon which ‘‘the status quo’’ is based. And that’s basically my point. The time for pointing fingers is over. The time for self-righteous indignation, outrage, defensiveness, fear, and self-pity is over. If we don’t drop it all and start problem-solving for real, we’re just going to stay caught in this vicious, pointless cycle.
A note on language: Chauvinism is the unreasoning partiality of a particular person or group. According to Webster
So male chauvinist side with men and promote them as superior. A female chauvinist would do so for women. Both attitudes are sexist.
When I have had work place conversations about sexism, the general consensus, has been that whatever differences remain in how women are treated in the workplace are rational. For example, if women are not promoted as often it must be they choose not to put their career first; if they are paid less, it is because they work in jobs that are not as valuable. The allegation is that the overall difference is due to many completely rational and objectively justifiable decisions. I don’t accept that as axiomatic as many of my co-workers do, and I would like these kinds of difference studied and quantified. I want to know what the numbers are.
But there are other aspects of sexism that are not so easily explained as rational. When women are treated in ways a male colleague of equal expertise would not be. When I mention these, I am often told I must be exaggerating, or I must be misinterpreting what is going on. I hear this category of sexist incidents echoed in the experiences of other women, including female justices and scientists, and one male scientists who used to present as female. Oh many women tell me they don’t have such experiences, but then many women help participate in them. Sexism that disfavors women is not the sole domain of men.
I have found that when dealing with certain individuals, they would not accept my technical advice because I was female. I say this because when I got less knowledgeable male co-workers to back my position, they would follow the advice, but not when I had my female supervisor reiterate my position.
I have found some men who would not even talk with me directly. When they found out I was the tech, they recruited a female and had me talk to her and then had her act as a go between even on a conference call. This was after I resisted getting a man from my team to replace me on the project.
I have been told that I must be part of a rota to relieve the receptionist at lunch. I successfully fought this with the help of my male boss. No males were asked to participate in that rota, not even the male administrative assistants. He told me not to accept any assignment they would not ask of him. This was not the last such task that I declined on that basis.
More than once, in meetings, I have voiced an option that was ignored that was taken up for discussion once a man voiced it as if it were his idea. There were times this happened that another colleague pointed out that I had been advocating the option first, but this was rare.
As long as people accept and are even proud of Tomboys, while at the same time they are ashamed of boys and men who dress and act feminine, then male and female are not equal.
Until, and unless, femininity is as admired, revered, copied, respected, and emulated as much as masculinity is, then we do NOT have equality.
Are men and women equal? No, for all the reasons people have already said and more. Are we working on it? Yes, in a lot of ways. I don’t think we can ever achieve true “equality” for both genders because of the intrinsic differences, but I think we can achieve everybody doing what they choose with their lives without anyone else unduly influencing that (personally or systemically).
Couldn’t you combine your two complaints, and say that it implies there’s something shameful about being in a relationship where you cede unreasonable control over your life just because she’s a woman?
Do you think it’s coincidental that the ‘‘woman’’ in question isn’t even a woman, but a pussy? Do you think that when men describe other men as ‘‘giant vaginas’’ they mean it as some kind of compliment? Because when men are called ‘‘vaginas,’’ ‘‘pussies,’’ and ‘‘bitches,’’ the implication is that the men are weak, cowardly, or dominated and subjugated… like a woman. Why in that social context would ‘‘pussy-whipped’’ be interpreted in any other way?
No, it definitely won’t be easy. But the response of many when confronted with inequalities that still exist between the sexes is to shrug and say, “Well, that’s biology. There’s nothing you can do about that.”
Does that mean we shouldn’t even try? Alcoholism is rooted in biology, but that doesn’t mean it’s useless for an alcoholic to resist the urge to drink.
But think about it as an ongoing struggle. Don’t just shrug and say, “That’s biology.” What about an alcoholic that refrains from drinking? He or she is going against their own natures. It’s not impossible. It’s individual responsiblity.
Throughout the history of civilization the vast majority of societies engaged in torture, a fusion of religion and politics, slavery, sexism, child abuse, superstition, aristocracy. So arguably those are inborn traits, or at the very least more or less default traits. But we manage to mostly keep them under wraps in many societies in the 21st century.
So you can resist biology, or at the very least take its urges and redirect them. If sexism (meaning the desire to dominate women, keep them out of power, and condescendingly protect them from threats, contradictory as those agendas might be) is something innate to us, it doesn’t mean we have to give into it. Denmark has much better women’s rights than Saudi Arabia. But both are human societies.
This being a thread about equality, this question reminds me of a famous argument by a Supreme Court justice, (and I won’t beat it into the ground, and I’m not making an attempt at equivalence):
from Plessy v. Ferguson. The idea there was that society couldn’t possibly enforce equality when blacks and whites were so obviously separated from each other by nature. Racial inequality was natural, and we couldn’t do anything about it. A few years later we decided that that was kind of bullshit.
I’d rather not. It’s silly to believe our own biology is something we can/should have to fight against and “defeat” like it’s our sworn enemy.
I’ve never made any pretense that I believe in the whole “men and women are exactly the same and should be treated the same way in every circumstance” movement. It’s bullshit, and at our cores we all know it.
People still deserve to be treated with respect, regardless. But there’s nothing wrong with recognizing that we are different, and have different strengths and weaknesses.
So you agree that men are better airline pilots because of their “hunter ancestry,” then? Because that’s the sort of evolutionary insight the post you quoted was in response to.
Otherwise it isn’t clear where you disagree, exactly.
I haven’t read the whole thread, and I’m not going to speculate on whether there is any fact to back up either of these assertions. But for a second let’s just assume they are true. Then so the fuck what? As long as you’re willing to recognize that there are some women who can be good and capable airline pilots and some men who are good cleaners, then I don’t see a problem.
I think most of the upset over such things stems from the fact that individual variation necessitates that not every individual is going to fall into the predominant patterns. And when people feel like they are being forced into a role that doesn’t fit them, they get angry. And that should be respected - if there is a woman who’s a great engineer then she should have every right to pursue that career and earn her place in it the same as any man. But at the end of the day, there will still be a lot more male engineers. And that’s totally fine. It’s almost like the backlash against past “prescribed roles” has ushered in a shift in the other direction - if a girl says she wants to be a model she’ll be told “no no, women are liberated now! You should be a scientist or a politician instead.” and that’s where I think we’re failing ourselves.
That comparison fails, because men and women really are seriously biologically different from each other. If anything, we are more not less different than we appear. That doesn’t mean one gender is inferior to the other; that’s a meaningless question anyway, since there’s no objective “ideal human” to compare the genders against. But it does mean that the differences are real and can’t be legislated away.
Well, if men are innately on average better airline pilots (are they?) that would seem the most likely reason why. What’s the alternative explanation?
To a degree; women are better at noticing details. More likely it would be because they stayed at the camp more often and had to live with anything they tossed aside, instead of just leaving it behind them.
I don’t buy this “humans are special” argument; that humans are so superior that evolution doesn’t affect us like every other species. That’s never been anything but an ideologically driven claim.