7 ms·

Exactly. Sexism is not identical to misogynism. Where the latter is about being nasty, sexism is believing something about somebody solely based on their gender

by blowski 11y ago

Exactly. Sexism is not identical to misogynism. Where the latter is about being nasty, sexism is believing something about somebody solely based on their gender. So if I assume you don't like pizza and football because you're female, so instead buy you frozen yoghurt, I'm being sexist even if it's with the nicest of intentions. We're all human and we all make mistakes, but sometimes people blow those mistakes out of all proportion. We just need more understanding and patience on both sides of the fence.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>So if I assume you don't like pizza and football because you're female, so instead buy you frozen yoghurt, I'm being sexist even if it's with the nicest of intentions. If I'm buying my young niece a toy, and see two otherwise equal toys except one is blue and one is pink, is it sexist to choose the pink one? I have to make a choice, there is no non-colored toy. I only think it crosses into sexism if my niece told me she likes blue better and I still pick a pink one or if there is some reason that the pink option is objectively worse (say if I was buying her a Bumblebee transformer, picking the pink one instead of the yellow one would qualify because the yellow one is the canonical color).
- blowski 11y ago
  > If I'm buying my young niece a toy, and see two otherwise equal toys except one is blue and one is pink, is it sexist to choose the pink one? It would be sexist if you bought the pink one thinking "She's a girl, she'll prefer pink to blue" because you would be assuming something based solely on her gender. The best course of action might be to ask her "Do you want the blue one or the pink one?". But maybe you couldn't, and so you used your knowledge of your niece and of little girls in general, and you go with the pink one. Sometimes we have no choice but to use our stereotypes, but whenever possible we should get more data rather than just making assumptions.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >It would be sexist if you bought the pink one thinking "She's a girl, she'll prefer pink to blue" because you would be assuming something based solely on her gender. What if I think "she is a girl, which means that, given I do not know her preference, she is more likely to prefer pink to blue"? Is using averages sexist/racist/*ist? Would it be genderist to assume someone who displays all the signs of a guy is a guy?
    - blowski 11y ago
      The logic of averages works like this: Girls are more likely to prefer pink than blue. My niece is a girl. Therefore she is more likely to prefer pink. So it seems to stand. However, my niece is also Italian, and Italians are more likely to prefer blue to pink. She is also vegetarian and vegetarians are more likely to prefer green to either blue or pink. (I'm making all these stats up in case that wasn't obvious). So which colour toy should I buy for my niece? Humans are complex. They can't be reduced to simple 'this one or that one' probabilities based on a single factor.
- newscracker 11y ago
  > If I'm buying my young niece a toy, and see two otherwise equal toys except one is blue and one is pink, is it sexist to choose the pink one? I have to make a choice, there is no non-colored toy. This is where knowing how these associations came into being could also help you and also help educate others (including your young niece). Several decades ago, the colors promoted were blue for girls and pink for boys. Today people would be surprised to know this, but what's important is realizing that this was all created by a group of people saying "this color is what is appropriate for this gender because...(prejudices)", which basically sounds ridiculous. Here's an excerpt from an article [0] on Jezebel (I found it by searching for "girls blue boys pink"): > From Smithsonian.com: > Ladies' Home Journal article in June 1918 said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti. > In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene's told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle's in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago. ---------- Here's an excerpt from a similar article [1] from BBC that explains that there are no gender specific differences in babies/kids and that in adults blue is the most preferred by men and women: > Various studies have looked at colour preferences in different age groups. In the US most have found that babies and toddlers, whether male or female, are attracted to primary colours such as red and blue. Pink doesn’t feature high on the list, although it is more popular than brown and grey. Some studies of this age group have found blue is favoured, others red, but they rarely find any gender difference. > In 2007, research conducted at Newcastle University in the UK asked adults for their favourite colour. Did most of the women choose pink, or even red? No. The colour which came out top, for both men and women, was blue. [0]: http://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys http://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blu... [1]: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141117-the-pink-vs-blue-gender-myth http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141117-the-pink-vs-blue-ge...
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >This is where knowing how these associations came into being could also help you and also help educate others (including your young niece). Several decades ago, the colors promoted were blue for girls and pink for boys. I'm fully aware this use to be the case. I'm not saying there is some biological reason that the average girl today will prefer pink to blue, only that, as for now, they do, and as such and given no other knowledge of my niece, I should pick the pink one. I also think I use way too many commas.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  So, this is an interesting example because people are throwing Bayes around, and yet when asked what their favourite color is, the most popular answer for women is blue. And yet, their favourite color is associated with men. I wonder what could possibly have caused this divergence from making decisions on a factual basis when everyone here is so focused on using statistics? https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/12/blue-worlds-favourite-colour/ https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/12/blue-worlds-favourite-c...
charlieflowers 11y ago
> So if I assume you don't like pizza and football because you're female, so instead buy you frozen yoghurt, I'm being sexist I don't think so (if anyone thinks I'm wrong, I'd like to hear your thoughts). I think to be sexist, it must be (1) based on gender and (2) assume something _disparaging_ about the individual. Getting them yoghurt might get you laughed at for being silly, but it doesn't seem sexist to me. Assuming they might need some additional explanation of the algorithm you're discussing because they are female (or male) is sexist. Thoughts?
- blowski 11y ago
  > (2) assume something _disparaging_ about the individual. The problem is that "disparaging" is in the eye of the beholder. What you think of as silly might be really offensive to another person. What was harmless 30 years ago - say, pinching a female colleague's bum - could today be considered beyond the pale. It's better not to assume anything about anybody unless necessary. I'm sure you've been in a situation where somebody has assumed something about you, and it can be really annoying.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    If you'd allow me to rephrase, "It's better to treat people as individuals first and part of a demographic second."
- mlajeunesse 11y ago
  I disagree, I don't think you have to think something disparaging. I think often acts of sexism are not intentional and are deeply engrained in us. Here is an example that happened to me last night. I walked into a small startup pitch event, approached a group of older men and said hi. They barely reacted to me. Not 30 seconds later a man of my age (who I happen to know) walks in and this group of men all turned and shook his hand. To be clear they did not previously know each other. I don't for a second think that any of these men saw me and thought to themselves "She's a woman, I'm not going to bother saying hello or introducing myself" I just think that on instinct they saw a man and decided to introduce themselves. This happens all the time to women. I can't count the number of times men have skipped over shaking my hand. It's a small thing, it's more than likely not intentional, but it is a bit sexist. Sexism isn't always a big evil act, it can be a lot of small things that add up to make it harder for women to succeed.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Is it sexism to make assumptions that are probabilistically correct? Consider the following procedure: 1) For a woman I don't know, I buy her frozen yogurt. 2) For a man I don't know, I buy him pizza. Now suppose my stereotypes are actually accurate - i.e., P(likes froyo > pizza|woman) > 0.5 and P(likes pizza > froyo | man) > 0.5. This procedure, based purely on stereotypes, will make everyone happier than flipping a coin. It's actually the best possible way to allocate pizza and frozen yogurt if the only information I have is gender. Are you really saying that to not be sexist, I need to ignore information and make worse decisions? (My supposition that stereotypes are accurate has actually been studied: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o... )
- blowski 11y ago
  > Is it sexism to make assumptions that are probabilistically correct? Yes it's sexist, because assuming something about somebody based purely on their gender is precisely what sexism is. However, sometimes, in the face of limited data and limited resources to gather more data, being sexist might be the best possible course of action. The problem with the stereotypes of gender is that you are dealing with huge numbers of people. Even if a well-conducted survey reveals that 99.9% of women prefer frozen yoghurt to pizza, then there's still around 3.5 million women in the world that prefer pizza to frozen yoghurt. So the best possible way to decide whether to buy pizza or frozen yoghurt for a woman is to ask her. However, if you had to make a snap decision then, yes, you should go with the statistically more likely option and if you get it wrong then she should understand why you did it.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    > ...assuming something about somebody based purely on their gender is precisely what sexism is. I'm going to challenge that definition. There are absolutely biological difference between men and women. When I offer to help a young woman carry her suitcase up stairs, am I being sexist because I assume she would appreciate the help? The definition of sexism needs to have room for some reality or the definition is useless or even harmful.

by blowski 11y ago

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>So if I assume you don't like pizza and football because you're female, so instead buy you frozen yoghurt, I'm being sexist even if it's with the nicest of intentions. If I'm buying my young niece a toy, and see two otherwise equal toys except one is blue and one is pink, is it sexist to choose the pink one? I have to make a choice, there is no non-colored toy. I only think it crosses into sexism if my niece told me she likes blue better and I still pick a pink one or if there is some reason that the pink option is objectively worse (say if I was buying her a Bumblebee transformer, picking the pink one instead of the yellow one would qualify because the yellow one is the canonical color).

blowski 11y ago
> If I'm buying my young niece a toy, and see two otherwise equal toys except one is blue and one is pink, is it sexist to choose the pink one? It would be sexist if you bought the pink one thinking "She's a girl, she'll prefer pink to blue" because you would be assuming something based solely on her gender. The best course of action might be to ask her "Do you want the blue one or the pink one?". But maybe you couldn't, and so you used your knowledge of your niece and of little girls in general, and you go with the pink one. Sometimes we have no choice but to use our stereotypes, but whenever possible we should get more data rather than just making assumptions.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >It would be sexist if you bought the pink one thinking "She's a girl, she'll prefer pink to blue" because you would be assuming something based solely on her gender. What if I think "she is a girl, which means that, given I do not know her preference, she is more likely to prefer pink to blue"? Is using averages sexist/racist/*ist? Would it be genderist to assume someone who displays all the signs of a guy is a guy?
  - blowski 11y ago
    The logic of averages works like this: Girls are more likely to prefer pink than blue. My niece is a girl. Therefore she is more likely to prefer pink. So it seems to stand. However, my niece is also Italian, and Italians are more likely to prefer blue to pink. She is also vegetarian and vegetarians are more likely to prefer green to either blue or pink. (I'm making all these stats up in case that wasn't obvious). So which colour toy should I buy for my niece? Humans are complex. They can't be reduced to simple 'this one or that one' probabilities based on a single factor.
newscracker 11y ago
> If I'm buying my young niece a toy, and see two otherwise equal toys except one is blue and one is pink, is it sexist to choose the pink one? I have to make a choice, there is no non-colored toy. This is where knowing how these associations came into being could also help you and also help educate others (including your young niece). Several decades ago, the colors promoted were blue for girls and pink for boys. Today people would be surprised to know this, but what's important is realizing that this was all created by a group of people saying "this color is what is appropriate for this gender because...(prejudices)", which basically sounds ridiculous. Here's an excerpt from an article [0] on Jezebel (I found it by searching for "girls blue boys pink"): > From Smithsonian.com: > Ladies' Home Journal article in June 1918 said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti. > In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene's told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle's in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago. ---------- Here's an excerpt from a similar article [1] from BBC that explains that there are no gender specific differences in babies/kids and that in adults blue is the most preferred by men and women: > Various studies have looked at colour preferences in different age groups. In the US most have found that babies and toddlers, whether male or female, are attracted to primary colours such as red and blue. Pink doesn’t feature high on the list, although it is more popular than brown and grey. Some studies of this age group have found blue is favoured, others red, but they rarely find any gender difference. > In 2007, research conducted at Newcastle University in the UK asked adults for their favourite colour. Did most of the women choose pink, or even red? No. The colour which came out top, for both men and women, was blue. [0]: http://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys http://jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blu... [1]: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141117-the-pink-vs-blue-gender-myth http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141117-the-pink-vs-blue-ge...
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >This is where knowing how these associations came into being could also help you and also help educate others (including your young niece). Several decades ago, the colors promoted were blue for girls and pink for boys. I'm fully aware this use to be the case. I'm not saying there is some biological reason that the average girl today will prefer pink to blue, only that, as for now, they do, and as such and given no other knowledge of my niece, I should pick the pink one. I also think I use way too many commas.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
So, this is an interesting example because people are throwing Bayes around, and yet when asked what their favourite color is, the most popular answer for women is blue. And yet, their favourite color is associated with men. I wonder what could possibly have caused this divergence from making decisions on a factual basis when everyone here is so focused on using statistics? https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/12/blue-worlds-favourite-colour/ https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/12/blue-worlds-favourite-c...

charlieflowers 11y ago

> So if I assume you don't like pizza and football because you're female, so instead buy you frozen yoghurt, I'm being sexist I don't think so (if anyone thinks I'm wrong, I'd like to hear your thoughts). I think to be sexist, it must be (1) based on gender and (2) assume something _disparaging_ about the individual. Getting them yoghurt might get you laughed at for being silly, but it doesn't seem sexist to me. Assuming they might need some additional explanation of the algorithm you're discussing because they are female (or male) is sexist. Thoughts?

blowski 11y ago
> (2) assume something _disparaging_ about the individual. The problem is that "disparaging" is in the eye of the beholder. What you think of as silly might be really offensive to another person. What was harmless 30 years ago - say, pinching a female colleague's bum - could today be considered beyond the pale. It's better not to assume anything about anybody unless necessary. I'm sure you've been in a situation where somebody has assumed something about you, and it can be really annoying.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  If you'd allow me to rephrase, "It's better to treat people as individuals first and part of a demographic second."
mlajeunesse 11y ago
I disagree, I don't think you have to think something disparaging. I think often acts of sexism are not intentional and are deeply engrained in us. Here is an example that happened to me last night. I walked into a small startup pitch event, approached a group of older men and said hi. They barely reacted to me. Not 30 seconds later a man of my age (who I happen to know) walks in and this group of men all turned and shook his hand. To be clear they did not previously know each other. I don't for a second think that any of these men saw me and thought to themselves "She's a woman, I'm not going to bother saying hello or introducing myself" I just think that on instinct they saw a man and decided to introduce themselves. This happens all the time to women. I can't count the number of times men have skipped over shaking my hand. It's a small thing, it's more than likely not intentional, but it is a bit sexist. Sexism isn't always a big evil act, it can be a lot of small things that add up to make it harder for women to succeed.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Is it sexism to make assumptions that are probabilistically correct? Consider the following procedure: 1) For a woman I don't know, I buy her frozen yogurt. 2) For a man I don't know, I buy him pizza. Now suppose my stereotypes are actually accurate - i.e., P(likes froyo > pizza|woman) > 0.5 and P(likes pizza > froyo | man) > 0.5. This procedure, based purely on stereotypes, will make everyone happier than flipping a coin. It's actually the best possible way to allocate pizza and frozen yogurt if the only information I have is gender. Are you really saying that to not be sexist, I need to ignore information and make worse decisions? (My supposition that stereotypes are accurate has actually been studied: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20of%20stereotypes.pdf http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable%20accuracy%20o... )

blowski 11y ago
> Is it sexism to make assumptions that are probabilistically correct? Yes it's sexist, because assuming something about somebody based purely on their gender is precisely what sexism is. However, sometimes, in the face of limited data and limited resources to gather more data, being sexist might be the best possible course of action. The problem with the stereotypes of gender is that you are dealing with huge numbers of people. Even if a well-conducted survey reveals that 99.9% of women prefer frozen yoghurt to pizza, then there's still around 3.5 million women in the world that prefer pizza to frozen yoghurt. So the best possible way to decide whether to buy pizza or frozen yoghurt for a woman is to ask her. However, if you had to make a snap decision then, yes, you should go with the statistically more likely option and if you get it wrong then she should understand why you did it.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > ...assuming something about somebody based purely on their gender is precisely what sexism is. I'm going to challenge that definition. There are absolutely biological difference between men and women. When I offer to help a young woman carry her suitcase up stairs, am I being sexist because I assume she would appreciate the help? The definition of sexism needs to have room for some reality or the definition is useless or even harmful.