If you could wave a magic wand and remove one of these at the cost of letting the other two continue unabated, which would you choose to remove?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm curious as to the different treatment afforded to women in the USA Vs. less enlightened places such as Pakistan or Afghanistan where there is still a strong emphasis on patriarchal domination and traditional gender roles, which clearly have their roots in the country's religion.

If it is 'natural' to oppress women, what form should that oppression take?

Is the USA wrong to allow women the vote, to have abortions, to pursue careers? Just what rights should women have or not have based on the 'natural law' of sexism?

Edited January 30, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[SMR 368]

Gender is natural, sex is natural, sexism is not. You seem to believe that gender roles are sacrosanct and that cultural constuctions are part of a natural order. That's problematic for obvious reasons.

These questions are getting to a level where I can't really adequately answer them in a concise way and I'm not sure how much of an essay you really want. Some cultural constructions are part of a natural order. Unfortunately, the term natural is no easier to understand in this context than it is in the context of food. I'm not sure why you see that as problematic for "obvious reasons."

When we talk about sexism, we're talking about prejudices arising from traditional gender stereotypes and a certain belief among some people that a person of one sex is superior to another or should conform to some sort of model.

I wouldn't say that one gender is superior but conforming to certain models is normal and healthy.

So why is it problematcic? Quite simply it's got more to do with the prejudices of the individual and cultural pressures than anything. In some parts of the world, as I'm sure you know, women are barred from education (or at least after a certain level) because this keeps women in their place (i.e. dependent on men to provide for them). That used to be the case here too, women weren't allowed to vote.

I don't think women should be allowed to vote. I also think that most women shouldn't be educated past a certain level in many situations. However, both of these stands have more to do with my cynical outlook on education and voting than they do to do with my view of women. We can go into this if you want, but it's tied to lots of other tangents, so it wouldn't be a short discussion.

There is no logical or rational (as you like to say) reason for any of this, its about maintaining a patriarchal social order. If there are no reasons that a woman can't achieve the same or more than a man - in business, academia, the sciences, politics, religion (in short all of the areas in which we look to measure personal success) then how do you justify the idea that sexism is natural? Its natural to be prejudiced against women? Is it?

Maintaining a patriarchal social order isn't rational and logical? I disagree. Patriarchal social orders are more stable, more productive, and lead to better outcomes for both men and women. If you want to go there, we can do that, too. It also has lots of tangents. The summary is that while women are naturally incentivized to participate and contribute to society by virtue of maternal certainty and reduced gestational capacity, men aren't. Patriarchal society is designed to incentivize men to contribute and allow collaboration both between men and between men and women.

Men and women are treated differently, sure. Exactly how that works is open to question. However most of the example scenarios you offered make the assumption that men and women have the same freedoms. This is not the case, just look at other cultures, take Pakistan for instance. Is their society more 'natural' than ours because many women are 'sold' through arranged marriages and effectively kept as domestic servants?

This is sort of a straw man since I'm not trying to defend Pakistan. Pakistan is probably a really screwed up place. If you want to talk about Pakistan, we can go there, but I don't really see the point. I also don't have a lot of background on what is actually going on there, so I don't have a strong opinion.

On the other hand, you've evaded the actual question with a little hand-waving about how it is open to question. That's why I asked the question. Understanding what types of discrimination based on gender are healthy and which amount to evil sexism is quite non-trivial.

What exactly are you trying to say?

I hope this has made it a little clearer.

I don't believe that any of the above are examples of sexism. Some are examples of discrimination, but none are of sexism.

Bingo!

What is that supposed to mean? I mean that as an honest question. And not so much because I disagree. Discrimination is the act of treating people differently because of what you know about them and is a natural part of life. I'm just not sure of how you define sexism.

To me, sexism is discrimination based on sex. So all of the above scenarios are 'sexist.' I just don't see that as a bad thing.

Edited January 30, 2014 by SMR

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think women should be allowed to vote. I also think that most women shouldn't be educated past a certain level in many situations. However, both of these stands have more to do with my cynical outlook on education and voting than they do to do with my view of women. We can go into this if you want, but it's tied to lots of other tangents, so it wouldn't be a short discussion.

Maintaining a patriarchal social order isn't rational and logical? I disagree. Patriarchal social orders are more stable, more productive, and lead to better outcomes for both men and women. If you want to go there, we can do that, too. It also has lots of tangents. The summary is that while women are naturally incentivized to participate and contribute to society by virtue of maternal certainty and reduced gestational capacity, men aren't. Patriarchal society is designed to incentivize men to contribute and allow collaboration both between men and between men and women.

Oh I think the above most definitely merits further explanation. So why shouldn't women be allowed the vote and exactly to what extent should they be allowed to participate in society? So there should be no women doctors? and women should have no career or other life aspirations beyond being homemakers or low-paid part-time workers?

I brought up Afghanistan and Pakistan because they are examples of a traditional patriarchal society where women's roles are limited. This is something that human rights groups (and to a lesser extent western governments) have been drawing attention to for years. How much like those places should the USA be to achieve this ideal state of 'natural order' where women occupy a fixed role in society, disctinct from their male counterparts.

[Teddy B 17,252]

What is that supposed to mean? I mean that as an honest question. And not so much because I disagree. Discrimination is the act of treating people differently because of what you know about them and is a natural part of life. I'm just not sure of how you define sexism.

To me, sexism is discrimination based on sex. So all of the above scenarios are 'sexist.' I just don't see that as a bad thing.

Discrimination is by definition, the unfair treatment of another based on race, sex, religion or other attribute. Telling a boy he cannot play on a girls team, or a girl that she cannot play on a boys team isn't unfair or discrimination, it's common sense. Men are naturally stronger and bigger than most women, that's not sexism, it's a fact. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, men are stronger and bigger than most women.

After reading your list again, I will agree that your items I have quoted below are indeed sexism. For some reason they did compute in that way the first time I read your list.

9) A woman is passed up for promotion/hire because she is pregnant and will be unavailable for some months due to maternity leave.

10) A woman is passed up for promotion/hire because her boss/potential employer knows that she plans to have children in the next couple of years and may not be available.

11) A woman is passed up for promotion/hire because it's possible that she might get pregnant in the future (because uterus and ovaries).

Edited January 30, 2014 by Teddy B

[decocker 7,198]

But you know all of this. Any rational adult understands that you treat men and women differently. The real question is when does this difference become discriminatory. The answer is highly subjective. That's why I asked you to define sexism. Yes, I can read the dictionary, but the dictionary definition is actually rather deficient. I'm interested if you could flesh out your understanding of sexism.

Here are some examples of possible sexism and I want to know whether you think these are examples of sexism:

1) A boy is not allowed to participate on a girls' sports team. There was no boys' sports team for that sport.

2) A girl is not allowed to participate on a boys' sports team. There was no girls' sports team for that sport.

3) A boy is not allowed to participate on a girls' sports team. There was a boys' sports team for that sport.

4) A girl is not allowed to participate on a boys' sports team. There was a girls' sports team for that sport.

5) A man is discharged from the military because he cannot meet the physical standards for men. He could meet them for women.

6) A city is attacked. All of the men are required to take up arms to fight off the invaders while the women stay home.

7) A man pays for a date.

8) A man gives up his seat for a woman on the bus.

9) A woman is passed up for promotion/hire because she is pregnant and will be unavailable for some months due to maternity leave.

10) A woman is passed up for promotion/hire because her boss/potential employer knows that she plans to have children in the next couple of years and may not be available.

11) A woman is passed up for promotion/hire because it's possible that she might get pregnant in the future (because uterus and ovaries).

12) A man chooses to only date women.

13) A woman chooses to only date men.

14) A man chooses to only date men.

15) A woman chooses to only date women.

16) A man is arrested in a domestic dispute instead of the woman because he is deemed to be more physically threatening.

no. no. no.

[Teddy B 17,252]

no. no. no.

I don't smoke it no more.

[decocker 7,198]

I don't think women should be allowed to vote. I also think that most women shouldn't be educated past a certain level in many situations. However, both of these stands have more to do with my cynical outlook on education and voting than they do to do with my view of women. We can go into this if you want, but it's tied to lots of other tangents, so it wouldn't be a short discussion.

i can't believe i just read this. i mean i can. i've read various forums where this sort of view is applauded.

and i'm not sure if you will venture further, but please do expand on why women should not be allowed to vote. and please don't worry about offending my feminine sensibilities, inquiring (though estrogenic) minds want to know.

I don't smoke it no more.

that's a shame.

[Teddy B 17,252]

i can't believe i just read this. i mean i can. i've read various forums where this sort of view is applauded.

and i'm not sure if you will venture further, but please do expand on why women should not be allowed to vote. and please don't worry about offending my feminine sensibilities, inquiring (though estrogenic) minds want to know.

I thought it was a joke.

that's a shame.

Help a guy out will ya?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think it is a joke. The whole premise here is that 'sexism is natural'. Suggesting that women fit a certain role in society that comes with reduced rights, is totally consistent with that.

It's certainly a 'quaint' idea to be floating in 2014.

[decocker 7,198]

I thought it was a joke.

i didn't read it that way. 'sexism is natural' nah..

Help a guy out will ya?

i'm working on my master plan to move to the motherland. Colorado.

[mota bhai 2,675]

FWIW, a debate on sexism is precisely why this thread was originally created. I thought that wouldn't happen when I saw sexism getting no votes at all but then SMR showed up. Thanks, dude. You da man.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I don't think it is a joke. The whole premise here is that 'sexism is natural'. Suggesting that women fit a certain role in society that comes with reduced rights, is totally consistent with that.

It's certainly a 'quaint' idea to be floating in 2014.

i didn't read it that way. 'sexism is natural' nah..

i'm working on my master plan to move to the motherland. Colorado.

Unfortunately, you are both correct. I really didn't think that type of male hierarchy mindset was still prevalent today, at least not to that extent.

Val, it's been 6 years since my last toke, I'm jonesing big time.

[decocker 7,198]

Val, it's been 6 years since my last toke, I'm jonesing big time.

time for some medicinal healing

in my opinion, getting rid of racisim would be the first step towards ending sexism. but i don't think you can put sexism ahead of racism in a magic wand time line.

[Teddy B 17,252]

time for some medicinal healing

I won't go schizo, will I?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unfortunately I think a debate on whether or not women should be allowed the vote - probably violates the TOS. No doubt some enterprising mod will kill the sexism discussion before it really starts, if they are enforcing the TOS of course.

I kind of hope it gets left as I'm interested in what SMR means.