What is Sexism?

[Czarcasm]

Sorry, but I don’t get enjoyment from open antagonism.
Is “sexism” then pretty much the same as “misogyny”, or are there differences?

[ladyfoxfyre]

Holy crap, I don’t believe you’re even asking this question in all honesty. Without even answering for any of your posts, your citations proving my point, never providing your own definition of sexism or answering any of the questions that have been directly posed at you.

No, sexism and misogyny are different. Remember when you said that yourself?

@Czarcasm

The OP was pretty damn clear what I was referring to in that other thread, and I posted exactly what I wanted to post because I clearly wanted to talk about sexism, not misogyny. The only way you could possible mistake one subject for the other is if you think that they are basically the same thing.

Try harder.

[Czarcasm]

@gracer

True. But what it shows is that throughout academia (and she is an influential feminist and academic, not just a randomer with an opinion) sexism is used in a way that differs from the more colloquial definition in two particular ways:

1. what it refers to is institutionalised, not just random incidents
2. by virtue of 1 it can only apply to women

So she has a very particular take on the meaning of sexism, but it still adheres to those two points and in that way differs from the broader colloquial usage.

Then the question becomes “What is the difference(if any) between sexism and insitutionalized sexism?”

[ladyfoxfyre]

Hahahahaha…ok. This has been fun Czarcasm. Enjoy the rest of your fact-finding mission.

[Czarcasm]

@ladyfoxfyre

Because with absolute certainty I can predict what will happen either way. If you are provided with a definition of “sexism” as it pertains to posters and statements on this board, you’re going to be privy to the most concerted “reductio ad absurdum” you’ve ever seen in your life. Put forth, I would imagine, by the charming contingent of gentlemen in the ATMB thread you linked in your OP. They will put forth arguments aiming to demonstrate that if you seek to moderate misogyny on this board, that I also would have you destroy puppies, happiness, the smiles of babies, and free speech and expression as we know it.

If I give you a laundry list of examples, including examples that have been moderated in both Pit threads and the ATMB thread, that same charming contingent will argue that these were jokes, I am oversensitive, need to toughen up, and that my examples are insufficient to demonstrate any accused “sexism” and therefore the whole thing should be dropped.

Care to take bets?

Neither one happened.

[ladyfoxfyre]

Still not answering any of those questions, I see. Or admitting that your own prestigious cite actually supports my point. Hm.

[gracer]

@Czarcasm

Then the question becomes “What is the difference(if any) between sexism and insitutionalized sexism?”

Why does that become the question from what I posted? What I posted is support for the position that one of the characteristics of sexism is that it is institutionalised.

So now I don’t know what your question is. Is it:

• What is the difference between the colloquial/broad/dictionary definition and the academic definition?

or

• What is the difference between gender discrimination and sexism?

Or something else?

[Czarcasm]

@ladyfoxfyre

Still not answering any of those questions, I see. Or admitting that your own prestigious cite actually supports my point. Hm.

The questions were answered, as far as I could tell.

[Czarcasm]

@gracer

Why does that become the question from what I posted? What I posted is support for the position that one of the characteristics of sexism is that it is institutionalised.

So now I don’t know what your question is. Is it:

• What is the difference between the colloquial/broad/dictionary definition and the academic definition?

or

• What is the difference between gender discrimination and sexism?

Or something else?

The former, I think…although I still believe, through what I’ve read so far, there isn’t just one “academic” definition out there.
Is the point that, if we are not talking about institutionalized sexism, we aren’t really talking about sexism at all?

[Malthus]

@gracer

True. But what it shows is that throughout academia (and she is an influential feminist and academic, not just a randomer with an opinion) sexism is used in a way that differs from the more colloquial definition in two particular ways:

1. what it refers to is institutionalised, not just random incidents
2. by virtue of 1 it can only apply to women

So she has a very particular take on the meaning of sexism, but it still adheres to those two points and in that way differs from the broader colloquial usage.

There is no doubt that she is using the term in a way that differs from the usual.

The question is whether her use of the term has anything that can be described as scientific consensus weight behind it, of the sort that is implied by the use of a phrase such as 'the following is the sociological definition … '.

Your points (1) and (2), for example, are premised on the notion that when we speak of “institutional”, it too has some specialized meaning - it means society or culture as a whole (and only that), rather than some subset of society or culture - such as a school [or for that matter, a message board].

This isn’t the “normal” definition of “institutional”, either. Usually, when academics, lawyers (or sociologists) speak of “institutional”, it is more specific - for example, “there is institutional bias present as evidenced by the following factors …”. If I understand her point (and those who reason as she does) correctly, it is literally impossible for a particular institution to be sexist against men (or racist against Whites for that matter) because the ‘gradient’ in society as a whole is sexist and racist against women and non-Whites.

This would not fly in other settings. One could not plausibly argue that a particular institution (say, the board of directors of a university) literally cannot be biased agianst a famous academic, because in society as a whole that academic is famous. All such judgments are normally situational. And while we would all agree that in most real-world situations women are the victims of sexist discrimination, it is not invariably the case.

Getting back to Marilyn Frye, I have no doubt that she is an influential academic and feminist, but this is nonetheless her own definition which she claims, at least in the piece you posted, to have come to on her own revelation, having personally discarded her previous definition as inadequate. This is not evidence that a single “sociological definition” is used “throughout academia”, rather the reverse. If there is a single academic definition, so far, no-one - including her - has said so.

Moreover, it given it is contrary to the more commonplace expansive definition, and it is based on a bunch of assumptions very few people would agree were true, so I think the latter is to be preferred. Her proposed definition looks very much like the fallacy of special pleading.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@Malthus

The question is whether her use of the term has anything that can be described as scientific consensus weight behind it, of the sort that is implied by the use of a phrase such as 'the following is the sociological definition … '.

You mean like perhaps, the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, from which the following definitions are derived:

Sexism is discrimination on the basis of sex and/or gender. It occurs at various levels, from the individual to the institutional, and involves practices that promote gender-based prejudice and stereotyping of social roles. Most commonly, sexism refers to inequalities that exist among men and women, particularly where women are treated as unequal or inferior to men.

Sexism is typically defined as the subordination of one sex, usually female, based on the assumed superiority of the other sex ( Kendall 2005 ) or an ideology that defines females as different from and inferior to males ( Andersen & Taylor 2005 ). Sex is the basis for the prejudice and presumed inferiority implicit in the term sexism.

I hear that is a very prestigious citation.

[Czarcasm]

See post #269.

[ladyfoxfyre]

See post #247.

[Malthus]

@ladyfoxfyre

You mean like perhaps, the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, from which the following definitions are derived:

I hear that is a very prestigious citation.

Seems a perfectly acceptable definition.

Note the ways in which it differs from the one I was discussing, as typified by gracer’s two points.

[RaftPeople]

@gracer

What is the difference between the colloquial/broad/dictionary definition and the academic definition?

The issue is that ladyfoxfyre seems to be unable to grasp that there is a “colloquial/broad/dictionary definition”.

In her world, the term “sexism” only has one definition and the definition MOST people are aware of and use is simply non-existent.

[ladyfoxfyre]

It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with what’s being proposed as the definition, I just have never understood it to be applicable to men. Your definition stops at “discrimination based on gender” and that isn’t how I have understood it. The definition you’re using is too broad.

I was asked to substantiate my definition with citations. Which I did. To turn it around and pretend like I’m the one who wasn’t aware of a “different” definition is funny.

[RaftPeople]

@ladyfoxfyre

It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with what’s being proposed as the definition, I just have never understood it to be applicable to men. Your definition stops at “discrimination based on gender” and that isn’t how I have understood it. The definition you’re using is too broad.

Too broad for what?

It is clearly one of two valid definitions that can be used correctly depending on the context.

[ladyfoxfyre]

I have no desire to argue with you any longer on the matter. I’ve been doing it for 7 pages now. I disagree that sexism is simply gender discrimination. I have found plenty of citations to support that definition, I didn’t pull it out of my ass, and it’s well documented.

[RaftPeople]

@ladyfoxfyre

I have no desire to argue with you any longer on the matter. I’ve been doing it for 7 pages now. I disagree that sexism is simply gender discrimination. I have found plenty of citations to support that definition, I didn’t pull it out of my ass, and it’s well documented.

That is an irrational response to the facts.

There are clearly multiple definitions. Period.

[ladyfoxfyre]

Oh well you said “period” so you must be right.