3 ms·

I never viewed sexism this way. But now that I am taking this perspective I can't help but notice how some to many women play a part in this as well. To put it

I never viewed sexism this way. But now that I am taking this perspective I can't help but notice how some to many women play a part in this as well. To put it a bit blunt and simplified: a considerable amount of women want to be treated like a princess. I guess those type of fantasies are an exaggeration of how a woman should've been treated in the early Victorian era. Another variant that I have experienced is the (partially) subconscious behaviour that women want to be dependent on males, but they don't want males to depend on them. If these cultural notions of dependence and being treated to the point of being (almost) spoiled don't go away, then a form of modern sexism will always exist. Note/nuance: I'm just stating the contribution of women here, because I've never thought about it this way. Males contribute to modern sexism as well in obvious ways (to me). Edit: could down votes be explained? A down vote is not enough feedback for me to adapt my posting behaviour.

pron 11y ago
One of the basic things to understand in sociology and social psychology is that what people want is often shaped by what they are encouraged to want (and it's very easy to make people want something, as verified in psychology experiments). This is why modern feminism doesn't concentrate on the "want". Not because it's not important (it's very important!), but because it's hard to separate cause and effect, especially under an unequal distribution of power. We only look at the result: how power is distributed, and assume that people don't "inhernetly" want to have less power than others, as that would mean letting others determine their lives. Of course, this assumption could be wrong, but so far there is no evidence that is the case. Consequently, feminism is not concerned with who "contributes" what to sexism (it is easy to make people want to be subjugated; can they later be said to be contributing to their own subjugation?). Sexism is an objective state of society, not a specific behavior (misogyny is), and when we say that some action is sexist we mean that it contributes to sexism; the action itself can be completely free of any ill intent.
- mettamage 11y ago
  I agree with the ideas you stated about social psychology & sociology. What people want is shaped by other people their encouragement. Thanks for stating it, I'm noticing I have a lot of implicit assumptions lying around there. So it is indeed hard to separate cause and effect, I'm wondering if we need to, since cause and effect might go both ways here in a feedback loop. I'm very inclined to believe this myself (one of my implicit assumptions, perhaps even a bias). Cultural notions reinforces what people want, which reinforce the culture. So allowing to reframe yourself to want something different is definitely a course of action that one could take. As is changing other people their behavior (although it has some really difficult challenges IMO, it's easier to change yourself in my experience). 'feminism is not concerned with who "contributes" what to sexism' <-- do you mean all forms of feminism? Or just the 3rd wave? I have the feeling that there are forms of feminism that do look at this, since various feminist views can also disagree with each other (2nd wave vs 3rd wave for example). I wouldn't know which forms of feminism do look at this though, it's more of a heuristic: since there are so many forms of feminism there must be a few of them doing this. "can they later be said to be contributing to their own subjugation?" <-- Perhaps I have a different idea of what "contribution" means. Even if someone would be brainwashed and completely programmed to destroy the world, then IMO that person would still contribute to destroying the world if acted towards that goal. I do acknowledge that the initial intent was never there and this person was completely reprogrammed (assume a The Matrix scenario, where someone is plugged in and reprogrammed). Nevertheless, a non-intentional behaviour is still a contribution. Even zombies contribute to cultural notions of society (if they'd exist). So I don't think it's the person's fault for being this way, it's the fault of the programmer. But if the person (now destroyer of the world) would realize this and try to stop it, that would be great. A pragmatic form of feminism that I have experienced myself is that feminists need to take care of their own personal development. This also means that people who are aware of sexist actions and view the need to change it, need to change themselves if they have habits conforming to old views. In that sense, feminism is concerned with who contributes (behaviorally) to sexism, because it gives a lense to look within oneself to change behaviour contributing to sexism. Knowing your gender role and in which way you conform to it is a handy tool to have in general for self-reflection. "and when we say that some action is sexist we mean that it contributes to sexism; the action itself can be completely free of any ill intent." <-- Thanks for the clarification. I do admit that my understanding of sexism is not as laser focused as I'd like it to be.

pron 11y ago

One of the basic things to understand in sociology and social psychology is that what people want is often shaped by what they are encouraged to want (and it's very easy to make people want something, as verified in psychology experiments). This is why modern feminism doesn't concentrate on the "want". Not because it's not important (it's very important!), but because it's hard to separate cause and effect, especially under an unequal distribution of power. We only look at the result: how power is distributed, and assume that people don't "inhernetly" want to have less power than others, as that would mean letting others determine their lives. Of course, this assumption could be wrong, but so far there is no evidence that is the case. Consequently, feminism is not concerned with who "contributes" what to sexism (it is easy to make people want to be subjugated; can they later be said to be contributing to their own subjugation?). Sexism is an objective state of society, not a specific behavior (misogyny is), and when we say that some action is sexist we mean that it contributes to sexism; the action itself can be completely free of any ill intent.

mettamage 11y ago
I agree with the ideas you stated about social psychology & sociology. What people want is shaped by other people their encouragement. Thanks for stating it, I'm noticing I have a lot of implicit assumptions lying around there. So it is indeed hard to separate cause and effect, I'm wondering if we need to, since cause and effect might go both ways here in a feedback loop. I'm very inclined to believe this myself (one of my implicit assumptions, perhaps even a bias). Cultural notions reinforces what people want, which reinforce the culture. So allowing to reframe yourself to want something different is definitely a course of action that one could take. As is changing other people their behavior (although it has some really difficult challenges IMO, it's easier to change yourself in my experience). 'feminism is not concerned with who "contributes" what to sexism' <-- do you mean all forms of feminism? Or just the 3rd wave? I have the feeling that there are forms of feminism that do look at this, since various feminist views can also disagree with each other (2nd wave vs 3rd wave for example). I wouldn't know which forms of feminism do look at this though, it's more of a heuristic: since there are so many forms of feminism there must be a few of them doing this. "can they later be said to be contributing to their own subjugation?" <-- Perhaps I have a different idea of what "contribution" means. Even if someone would be brainwashed and completely programmed to destroy the world, then IMO that person would still contribute to destroying the world if acted towards that goal. I do acknowledge that the initial intent was never there and this person was completely reprogrammed (assume a The Matrix scenario, where someone is plugged in and reprogrammed). Nevertheless, a non-intentional behaviour is still a contribution. Even zombies contribute to cultural notions of society (if they'd exist). So I don't think it's the person's fault for being this way, it's the fault of the programmer. But if the person (now destroyer of the world) would realize this and try to stop it, that would be great. A pragmatic form of feminism that I have experienced myself is that feminists need to take care of their own personal development. This also means that people who are aware of sexist actions and view the need to change it, need to change themselves if they have habits conforming to old views. In that sense, feminism is concerned with who contributes (behaviorally) to sexism, because it gives a lense to look within oneself to change behaviour contributing to sexism. Knowing your gender role and in which way you conform to it is a handy tool to have in general for self-reflection. "and when we say that some action is sexist we mean that it contributes to sexism; the action itself can be completely free of any ill intent." <-- Thanks for the clarification. I do admit that my understanding of sexism is not as laser focused as I'd like it to be.