Sexism: discuss

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=VCO3]
Andrea Dworkin was a chimp.

The problem with the label “feminism” is the baggage that it carries due to the shrill, poop-throwing Dworkins and the hilariously schizo Solanases of the movement.

In my experience, someone who identifies as “feminist” is someone whose gender tends to be their only hobby, interest, and therefore defining characteristic, which is kind of one of the whole things that feminism was trying to get away from. Most capital-f Feminists that I know only read books about gender issues, talk incessantly about gender issues and see them where they simply don’t exist, and often pursue advanced degrees in fabricated gender-based areas of study.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder how many feminists you know. Cause most of the ones I know read romance novels and Science Fiction, talk endlessly about chocolate and men (in a gossipy girly sort of way - not in the ‘oh those keepers of the patriarchy’ way) and even (gasp!) shave their legs.

102

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
I wonder how many feminists you know. Cause most of the ones I know read romance novels and Science Fiction, talk endlessly about chocolate and men (in a gossipy girly sort of way - not in the ‘oh those keepers of the patriarchy’ way) and even (gasp!) shave their legs.
[/QUOTE]

But that is not what “Feminist” means nowadays. The word comes with an enormous about of negative connotations.

Small-f feminist: You have less chance of reclaiming the word “Feminist” than McDonalds have of claiming back “McJob”. We do not have the academie francaise, we have a descriptive dictionary definition system. You should rejoice that Feminist is a negative term. It means that you have won, for there is now no need to describe a classical feminist as a feminist, for we are all feminists now.

103

What about all the masculists?

104

[QUOTE=Small British Shop Owner]
…It means that you have won, for there is now no need to describe a classical feminist as a feminist, for we are all feminists now.
[/QUOTE]
So true. Look at these stats: A recent professionally conducted nationwide survey, commissioned by the ERA Campaign Network shows that:

96% of American adults believe that men and women should have equal rights
88% believe that those equal rights should be guaranteed to them by the US Constitution. These views are so widely held by both men and women and across all segments of our society, that:
**72% mistakenly think the Constitution already specifies that male and female citizens are entitled to equal rights. **

It looks like 96% of adult Americans are feminists. Now let’s all 'fess up to it and get the equal rights amendment passed.
bluethree, feminist

105

Bryan, I have liked you for as long as I’ve seen you posting, so this is nothing personal. But just try to use your imagination for a moment. Really think about the question that I’m going to ask you. Keep in mind that I know nothing about the movie that you recomend other than it is satire on a subject that has to do with a civil rights issue and attitude that has affected me all of my life. If you say at the end of the discussion between us that I still should see it, I promise that I will.

If the subject of this thread had been about racism and you were white, would you have recomended a movie that was a satire on the politics of Black candidates?

For me, the parallel is fair. I was the one who could not go to the schools of my choice. I was not well-represented in Congress or the Senate just like the Blacks. Nor in the Executive Branch. Nor on the Supreme Court.

Think of the overall message this was sending to women of my generation about our worthiness. There were virtually no women judges, lawyers, engineers or doctors to tell us better – only a handful of famous scientists and women who made history. If you weren’t at least a teenager during the early 1960s when Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique – or if you have not studied what the 1940s and 1950s were like for women, then you cannot understand the true value of feminist politics of the Sixties and Seventies especially.

Do you want me to see the satire? I can have a sense of humor about these things a little. Is it a sequel to The Snarkout Boys and the Avocado of Death by Daniel Pinkwater?

106

[QUOTE=Small British Shop Owner]
But that is not what “Feminist” means nowadays. The word comes with an enormous about of negative connotations.

Small-f feminist: You have less chance of reclaiming the word “Feminist” than McDonalds have of claiming back “McJob”. We do not have the academie francaise, we have a descriptive dictionary definition system. You should rejoice that Feminist is a negative term. It means that you have won, for there is now no need to describe a classical feminist as a feminist, for we are all feminists now.
[/QUOTE]

And I refuse to accept the word has only negative connotations. Its a word that needs reclaiming. Historical feminists don’t DESERVE to have a word that means “man hating radical ugly lesbian” attached to them. From Mary Wollstonecraft to Susie Bright - there are thousands of women who aren’t/weren’t that sort of feminist. When we allow the word to mean only negative things, we do all the rational feminists that have existed a huge disservice. And without those women, I wouldn’t be educated in the fashion I am, have the opportunities I have, or have choices available to me. The least I can do to repay them is to identify myself as a feminist.

107

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
The least I can do to repay them is to identify myself as a feminist.
[/QUOTE]

Why?

That’s a serious question. Do you think Mary Wollstonecraft would care what phonemes you use to label yourself? Or would she be over the moon that you and I and my daughter have countless choices in life that she and her daughter didn’t, that 96% of Americans think it a given that men and women should have equal rights, and that people worldwide are working to empower and protect women who live in oppressive regimes? I tend to think she’d be a lot more interested in what you’re doing to aid oppressed people than in what you call yourself. Don’t you think she’d be glad to see you successful and happy and respected as an individual human being, not a label - whether that label be “woman” or “feminist”?

I dislike “reclaiming”, whether it be by the Fags, the Witches or the Feminists. It implies that words have ownership, and someone thinks they know the “real” meaning of the words and others are all ignorant and in need of (their) education. It implies that they want to control how others use language, which I find rather abhorrent. It creates cliques and divides people; it doesn’t make communication any clearer or more peaceful.

We all create meaning, together, by use and consensus, not by dictionary authority. And while I’m not counting posts, it seems that the consensus is that “feminist” doesn’t mean what it used to, at least among this group of people right here right now. Among this group of people, with their most common definition of feminist, I’m not one, so I don’t call myself that. If I was at a NOW meeting, I might very well call myself a feminist, because I know what it means there, in that context, to that group of people.

Words change meaning, and that’s okay. It’s a sign of an adaptable, growing, vibrant culture, not a stodgy stale declining one. Sure, it can be confusing when a word you’ve known one way acquires a new meaning. People don’t like change. But it happens, and it’s a sign of good things, not bad ones.

108

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Why?

That’s a serious question. Do you think Mary Wollstonecraft would care what phonemes you use to label yourself? Or would she be over the moon that you and I and my daughter have countless choices in life that she and her daughter didn’t, that 96% of Americans think it a given that men and women should have equal rights, and that people worldwide are working to empower and protect women who live in oppressive regimes? I tend to think she’d be a lot more interested in what you’re doing to aid oppressed people than in what you call yourself. Don’t you think she’d be glad to see you successful and happy and respected as an individual human being, not a label - whether that label be “woman” or “feminist”?

I dislike “reclaiming”, whether it be by the Fags, the Witches or the Feminists. It implies that words have ownership, and someone thinks they know the “real” meaning of the words and others are all ignorant and in need of (their) education. It implies that they want to control how others use language, which I find rather abhorrent. It creates cliques and divides people; it doesn’t make communication any clearer or more peaceful.

We all create meaning, together, by use and consensus, not by dictionary authority. And while I’m not counting posts, it seems that the consensus is that “feminist” doesn’t mean what it used to, at least among this group of people right here right now. Among this group of people, with their most common definition of feminist, I’m not one, so I don’t call myself that. If I was at a NOW meeting, I might very well call myself a feminist, because I know what it means there, in that context, to that group of people.

Words change meaning, and that’s okay. It’s a sign of an adaptable, growing, vibrant culture, not a stodgy stale declining one. Sure, it can be confusing when a word you’ve known one way acquires a new meaning. People don’t like change. But it happens, and it’s a sign of good things, not bad ones.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I think she would. I think these women are smart enough to know how much power there is in words. Particularly Mary Wollstonecraft - who understood the power of words. I think we are stupid to allow people who are not “us” to redefine the word that means “us.”

When you NEED a word that means “person who stands up for the rights of women” what word are you going to use if this one is left in such a damaged state it can’t be used. Why would we be OK with that?

This one doesn’t need to be reclaimed yet, in my opinion, because it hasn’t been lost yet. Like the word “liberal.” Or the word “Christian” which so many people are trying to turn into a negative word. If its so meaningless that words change over time, and so OK, why is it such a big deal to turn the word liberal into a dirty word? Why do we insist on using pro-choice/pro-life? Why did anyone bother to apply those connotations to feminist in the first place. And why do we care what connotations it has at all - but obviously you care, because you don’t like the label do to connotations other people have given it - and you’ve chosen to accept.

When we have reached consensus perhaps we won’t have use of the word anymore. But we haven’t, not by a long shot. When the Taliban is still active, women in Saudi Arabia can’t drive, when I know someone in this country who was approached about an arranged marriage for his daughters (he’s a conservative Christian - to his credit he thinks his daughter’s should make their own decisions about who they marry) - we still have use of the word. I’m not done using it yet, so they can’t have it.

109

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
It implies that they want to control how others use language, which I find rather abhorrent.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a valid goal IMO if the word fits these criteria:

– The word has so far drifted from its original meaning that [a subset of] people will not only insist that it does not only mean what it originally meant, but that their new definition is the only right one
– The new meaning of the word does not communicate an idea very well, either through not being very well thought out or through conflation with the old meaning
– The new meaning of the word makes it harder to find an appropriate word to properly express the old definition.

“Feminism” meaning “radical, misandrist feminism” fits all three categories. There isn’t really a better word for people who think that women should be equal to men than “feminist”, despite the fact that the position is obvious to most Dopers. Why not insist that that is a more proper meaning than “man-hating hairy lesbian”?

110

[QUOTE=LinusK]
The bottom line is we need to get past the idea that there are differences between men and women. Gender, after all, is a socially constructed category, not a natural one. We’re all the same.

It’s time to get past the stereotypes imposed by patriarchy: that women enjoy shopping, for example, or clothes, or that they’re not as sexually aggressive as men. To the extent that they’re true at all, it’s only because of the injustices of the past. If women spend more time at the mall than men, it’s because of the barriers to entry, that prevent them from staying home, and watching football, and drinking beer. Or installing the latest drivers on their computers.

Unfortunately, it’s a fact that institutional sexism, as well as history, conspires to hold women back. As long as schools, courts, and employers treat women differently than men, women will have to continue to struggle for equality. Take the divorce court for example: most of the time, women get primary custody of the couple’s children, after the divorce. What is this, but evidence of (and I would say proof of) of institutional sexism? Why can’t women enjoy the freedom of only having to take care of their kids every other weekend? Like men? This is a freedom men have enjoyed for generations.

Anytime you make assumptions about a person, based on gender, it’s sexism. And sexism persists, despite the refusal of many people to acknowledge it. Hopefully, someday soon, we’ll get to the place where we won’t even notice gender.

Unfortunately, we’re not there yet.
[/QUOTE]

I’m a feminist. No, I don’t hate men and I do occassionally shave my legs. But I shafe against traditional gender roles and social pressures for men and women to act certain ways, probably because even from a young age I found it uncomfortable to conform. I choose “feminist” as a way of describing myself because there’s no better word out there. “Humanist” just sounds flaky, IMHO (no offense, WhyNot.

However…

I disagree with you a bit, LinusK. I don’t think we have to think everyone’s the same for everyone to be treated with respect. As a biologist, it’s hard for me to see gender as completely social constructed. There’s been a ton of research documenting the differences between male and female that go beyond our reproductive parts. We are hard-wired to act differently, and we’re awash in different hormonal environments. It would be strange indeed if we had the same sensitivities, urges, and tendencies, or that we had the same strengths and abilities. It’s silly to pretend that men and women can do everything the other can in exactly the same way. We can’t, and all of us need to accept that this is okay.

I think it’s perfectly alright to make generalizations about genders. It will be a sad world indeed when we can’t say, “Women tend to be more sensitive than men” or “Men tend to be physically stronger than women.”

Nonetheless, I think men and women should be treated equally. Individuals should be viewed as such, and their abilities and deficiets should be determined based on their individual performance, not on whether or not they have a vagina or penis. But when there are indications that a gender-based approach might work better than an individual-based one, such as in the educational or counseling arena, then I don’t see anything wrong with it.

111

Well, since this thread has degenerated into a discussion of labels:

I’m NOT a feminist. I don’t believe that Men™ and Women™ should (or are) viewed as equals wrt the work place because men and women in the broad, generic sense, and contrary to popular belief, are not the same. They don’t always have the same career paths, make the same decisions wrt work vs home, always do the same relative work over long time frames, or have the same value to a company…so therefore they shouldn’t be AUTOMATICALLY treated exactly the same when they patently aren’t the same. Attempting to force them to be exactly the same, and be perceived as exactly the same is futile at best. Its stupid and counterproductive at worst.

What I DO believe is that PEOPLE who do the same job, work the same hours, have the same career paths (regardless of sex, ‘race’ or religion), and have the same long term value to a company…they should be treated the same, given the same pay, promotions, bonus’s, etc. Unfortunately its very difficult to make this happen by simply waving a magic wand and dictating that it happens by fiat. Equally unfortunately because of the situation there are certainly a fair amount of painting everyone with a broad brush, and times where companies actions are unjust and unfair because of it.

I’m sure that blood vessels are bursting all over the place at this point, and I’ll be lucky if anyone understands where I’m coming from here (not an uncommon unfortunately the way I write), so I’ll illustrate what my point is in the hopes of staving off the flames and knee jerk misunderstandings…if I’m going to be flamed it might as well be for my actual position.

Here’s what I’m getting at wrt the sex of an individual and his/her value to a company, at least from my perspective in the IT field (pure anecdotal impressions to follow): Women are generally (but not always) paid less because over time they work less than men do. When women work equally time (over the long haul), show equal levels of technical competence in the (IT) field, and have similar career paths they are paid about the same as men (in my own experience)…when they don’t, they aren’t. As it should be.

Why do women not work the equally over time? Well, in almost all of the cases I can think of from personal experience its because of family. They take time off to have babies (one of those differences that people who don’t realize there is a difference between men and women tend to forget). In addition they take time off when kids are sick. Or even husbands, mothers or other family members. For whatever reasons (society, hardwiring, cultural baggage, etc) women are usually the one’s who take time off when kids need to go to the doctor or dentist, are sick…or when anything else comes up and one person needs to take time off of work. This isn’t always the case of course…but in my own experience its GENERALLY the case. And companies (as well as other workers) pick up on this trend in the long term.

Also, in several anecdotal cases of married women in the IT field they aren’t able to work the sometimes long and grueling hours (system maintenance is usually done late at night or over weekends or other down times, when systems are down IT engineers are expected to basically be there until they aren’t down anymore, etc) when there are major problems. Why? Because they aren’t able to keep up? Don’t have the stamina or ability or drive to work 48 hour shifts eating cold pizza and Jolt? Nope. Because family or in most cases husbands don’t like them doing so.

When women don’t have kids, when they aren’t married or their husbands don’t have issues with them working long hours, weekends, etc…well, in my own (again anecdotal) experience they are paid aprox. what men of the same technical skill level and years in field are…sometimes more, sometimes less, but in the same ballpark. And I think thats EXACTLY as it should be…no more, no less.

Trying to mandate that women should make exactly what men make in the same position with out regard to their actual value to the company, without regard to possible disparities between other differences in long term work behavior is, IMHO, a mistake.

-XT

112

xtisme, Cecil makes some similar points in Are women paid less than men for the same work?

113

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
And I refuse to accept the word has only negative connotations. Its a word that needs reclaiming. Historical feminists don’t DESERVE to have a word that means “man hating radical ugly lesbian” attached to them.
[/QUOTE]

The problem I have with the word isn’t the connotation of lesbian radical type.

I dislike the groupthink of the visible, more ordinary ones. I hate the mentality of embracing victimhood, of viewing all men as oppressive, paternalistic enemies. I don’t like hearing it claimed that hysterical is a bigoted word on par with using Jew or Welsch to claim that someone is cheap, because the root word means uterus. Generally, I just really hate that in spite of all the gains we’ve made (granted, there are areas that need a lot of work), there are people who still claim how we’re being oppressed by patriarchy, and if we don’t, it’s because we’ve been too brainwashed by patriarchy to even see it.

114

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
xtisme, Cecil makes some similar points in Are women paid less than men for the same work?
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I didn’t know Cecil had done an article on this subject. I wonder what reaction it got (if any) in the forum dedicated to his articles. I’ll have to do a search later.

I thought this part was interesting:

This seems to indicate that ‘Women’s advocates’ (whoever they were) didn’t have a good grasp of how labor markets work…in fact, I’d have to say that whoever tried to make this case didn’t have any grasp at all. To be kind.

-XT

115

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
When we have reached consensus perhaps we won’t have use of the word anymore. But we haven’t, not by a long shot. When the Taliban is still active, women in Saudi Arabia can’t drive, when I know someone in this country who was approached about an arranged marriage for his daughters (he’s a conservative Christian - to his credit he thinks his daughter’s should make their own decisions about who they marry) - we still have use of the word. I’m not done using it yet, so they can’t have it.
[/QUOTE]

Did you miss bluthree’s response up thread with the statistics on what people think of equal rights?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8826765&postcount=104

The feminists won, it’s over, everything is as equal as it’s going to get. I’ve heard of winner’s remorse, but (wo)man, some of the people in this thread really take the cake.

As an aside… I’m aware there are still isolated incidents where the “good old boys network” might pass over a woman for a man. Well, that network gets smaller and smaller every day and in the next few years it won’t even exist anymore. It’s inevitable.

116

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Did you miss bluthree’s response up thread with the statistics on what people think of equal rights?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8826765&postcount=104

The feminists won, it’s over, everything is as equal as it’s going to get. I’ve heard of winner’s remorse, but (wo)man, some of the people in this thread really take the cake.

As an aside… I’m aware there are still isolated incidents where the “good old boys network” might pass over a woman for a man. Well, that network gets smaller and smaller every day and in the next few years it won’t even exist anymore. It’s inevitable.
[/QUOTE]
Er, but my point was that we haven’t passed the ERA yet and we definitely haven’t “won” yet.
To me, being ashamed to call yourself a feminist is like being ashamed to call yourself an adult. It just doesn’t compute.

117

[QUOTE=bluethree]
Er, but my point was that we haven’t passed the ERA yet and we definitely haven’t “won” yet.
To me, being ashamed to call yourself a feminist is like being ashamed to call yourself an adult. It just doesn’t compute.
[/QUOTE]

But why does something need to be codified in law when everyone and their grandmother already believes and practices it?

I guess my question is, how are things not equal in any meaningful way?

And I think people should be (currently) ashamed of the word feminist. It doesn’t bring up images of equality to me. To me it says “women want everything to be equal, except when they don’t.” I’m sure there’s a better word out there (and I’m not sure it’s “humanist” either), but damned if I can think of one.

118

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Did you miss bluthree’s response up thread with the statistics on what people think of equal rights?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8826765&postcount=104

The feminists won, it’s over, everything is as equal as it’s going to get. I’ve heard of winner’s remorse, but (wo)man, some of the people in this thread really take the cake.

As an aside… I’m aware there are still isolated incidents where the “good old boys network” might pass over a woman for a man. Well, that network gets smaller and smaller every day and in the next few years it won’t even exist anymore. It’s inevitable.
[/QUOTE]

What are those stats like in Saudi Arabia? Is the battle won merely here in the U.S.?

119

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
What are those stats like in Saudi Arabia? Is the battle won merely here in the U.S.?
[/QUOTE]

[smart-ass]Somehow I doubt they’re using the word “Feminist”. It’s probably something in, you know, Arabic. :wink: [/s-a]

But more seriously, no, of course the battle isn’t won there. But I thought the OP was American and we were talking about American gender relations.

120

[QUOTE=Zoe]
For me, the parallel is fair. I was the one who could not go to the schools of my choice. I was not well-represented in Congress or the Senate just like the Blacks. Nor in the Executive Branch. Nor on the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

You are represented in Congress, but I would not call you WELL represented – there’s nothing like a 50% of women in Congress – try 16 percent in the 110th Congress, even if Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker. (This is about on par with to global average of about 17% women elected to national legislatures, which isn’t saying a hell of a lot when you consider that some of the countries affecting that global average are Saudi Arabia and their ilk). You are not and have NEVER been represented in the White House, and though that may change in 2008 it’s a chicken that has yet to hatch, so you can’t count on it. And as for the Supreme Court – eight old men, five of them conservative Catholics, vs. Ruth Bader Ginsburg … you’re totally screwed there. You’ve come a long way, baby, but you’ve got a ways to go.