3 ms·

Just because women were involved in creating something doesn't make it not sexist.

by nollidge 14y ago

sp332 14y ago
Well it's no guarantee, but does make it a lot less likely.
- dkador 14y ago
  That's definitely not true.
  - sp332 14y ago
    Please be specific. I don't feel like guessing what you mean.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      I think he meant that what you said is not true. I.e. he is stating the inverse: "Having women involved in the creation of something does not have significant impact on whether it is sexist." Although I don't get how that needs to be clarified.
  - dkador 14y ago
    It's not true because men and women are both brought up in the same power structures. There are plenty of women who believe that women's rightful place is in the home, that buy into the notion of modern beauty, and that don't care about women's rights (aka abortion, rape, etc). That being said, I'd buy an argument that said women are more likely to be aware of these issues. Or even that women are less likely to be sexist. I suppose I took issue with your assertion that women are MUCH less likely to be sexist. I guess it's an argument of degrees.
    - sp332 14y ago
      Thanks, and sorry for the snark but it's way too easy to just talk past each other about feminist issues in general. My memory is a bit fuzzy but from interviews I've read with models, most of them (male and female) are against the "power structures" you're talking about. The only model I'm friends with is definitely not the sort of girl who believes her place is in the home etc.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  The more I think about that statement the less sense it makes to me. Why does being born a certain gender make one less likely to do something negative either to their own gender or the other gender? If we take your statement at face value then we have to make a whole bunch of assumptions that make little sense to me (e.g. that people have the same opinions of what is sexist, that all women are "sensitive" to such issues, that women never actively take part in sexism of women on purpose, that women being sexist to men doesn't exist, etc). So yeah... I'm going to go ahead and say that that statement is just false unless you can show me something that indicates it is true. Women are people. People are "sexist." More or less likelihood of such sexism is hard to track because there is no fixed definition (or "line") of sexism its self, nor is there an easy way to /prove/ that someone is or isn't sexist/being sexist.
  - sp332 14y ago
    Wow, can you at least pay attention to the context here? We're talking about a group of mostly women who are complaining about treatment of women. 1. It's not "being born" but identifying with a group. Gender, race, sports team, etc. You're more likely to act favorably toward people in your group. 2. Clearly not everyone has the same opinion of what's sexist. 3. If women were not "sensitive" to this, then they wouldn't be complaining so much. They are complaining, therefore I conclude that they are sensitive to it. 4. Women can be mean to other women, but why would they be sexist against women on purpose? 5. Women being sexist to men is not relevant to this context. We're talking about treatment of women.
    - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
      The context here is someone claiming that women are less sexist than men simply /because/ they're women. I was responding to this one comment/sentiment, rather than to the thread as a whole. #1, while I will accept that at face value you're more likely to root for the home team - I disagree with the unspoken assumption that that translates into less sexism. #2, right, but even with that being the case we know enough about what sexism is to blanket say that an entire gender is less likely to conduct it? #3, some women are complaining, some men are complaining about the reverse (e.g. /r/mensrights). Therefore using identical logic I can claim that because some men have complained about sexism that men are "less likely" than women to be sexist. See how that works (or doesn't)? #4, because women are people and people are sexist? What is it you want me to explain? If someone calls something sexist and it was produced by a women, earlier discussion not withstanding, it is. #5, women being sexist to ANYONE is entirely relevant to this discussion. The discussion is: "women are less sexist." Therefore ANY sexism on the part of a women is fair game.
- mherkender 14y ago
  Don't we all experience moments where our jobs require things of us that our moral compass disagrees with? The fact that women were involved (which is incredibly vague by the way) says just about nothing of the women or men that find this kind of thing sexist. It's not like sexism at tech trade shows is a new thing, but there always seems to be people to defend it. They are using naked women as attention-getting displays to sell laptop batteries to a largely male audience. Forget blaming the company, maybe they had to do it to sell their product, but surely there is some sexism involved here.

Just because women were involved in creating something doesn't make it not sexist.

sp332 14y ago

Well it's no guarantee, but does make it a lot less likely.

dkador 14y ago
That's definitely not true.
- sp332 14y ago
  Please be specific. I don't feel like guessing what you mean.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    I think he meant that what you said is not true. I.e. he is stating the inverse: "Having women involved in the creation of something does not have significant impact on whether it is sexist." Although I don't get how that needs to be clarified.
- dkador 14y ago
  It's not true because men and women are both brought up in the same power structures. There are plenty of women who believe that women's rightful place is in the home, that buy into the notion of modern beauty, and that don't care about women's rights (aka abortion, rape, etc). That being said, I'd buy an argument that said women are more likely to be aware of these issues. Or even that women are less likely to be sexist. I suppose I took issue with your assertion that women are MUCH less likely to be sexist. I guess it's an argument of degrees.
  - sp332 14y ago
    Thanks, and sorry for the snark but it's way too easy to just talk past each other about feminist issues in general. My memory is a bit fuzzy but from interviews I've read with models, most of them (male and female) are against the "power structures" you're talking about. The only model I'm friends with is definitely not the sort of girl who believes her place is in the home etc.
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
The more I think about that statement the less sense it makes to me. Why does being born a certain gender make one less likely to do something negative either to their own gender or the other gender? If we take your statement at face value then we have to make a whole bunch of assumptions that make little sense to me (e.g. that people have the same opinions of what is sexist, that all women are "sensitive" to such issues, that women never actively take part in sexism of women on purpose, that women being sexist to men doesn't exist, etc). So yeah... I'm going to go ahead and say that that statement is just false unless you can show me something that indicates it is true. Women are people. People are "sexist." More or less likelihood of such sexism is hard to track because there is no fixed definition (or "line") of sexism its self, nor is there an easy way to /prove/ that someone is or isn't sexist/being sexist.
- sp332 14y ago
  Wow, can you at least pay attention to the context here? We're talking about a group of mostly women who are complaining about treatment of women. 1. It's not "being born" but identifying with a group. Gender, race, sports team, etc. You're more likely to act favorably toward people in your group. 2. Clearly not everyone has the same opinion of what's sexist. 3. If women were not "sensitive" to this, then they wouldn't be complaining so much. They are complaining, therefore I conclude that they are sensitive to it. 4. Women can be mean to other women, but why would they be sexist against women on purpose? 5. Women being sexist to men is not relevant to this context. We're talking about treatment of women.
  - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
    The context here is someone claiming that women are less sexist than men simply /because/ they're women. I was responding to this one comment/sentiment, rather than to the thread as a whole. #1, while I will accept that at face value you're more likely to root for the home team - I disagree with the unspoken assumption that that translates into less sexism. #2, right, but even with that being the case we know enough about what sexism is to blanket say that an entire gender is less likely to conduct it? #3, some women are complaining, some men are complaining about the reverse (e.g. /r/mensrights). Therefore using identical logic I can claim that because some men have complained about sexism that men are "less likely" than women to be sexist. See how that works (or doesn't)? #4, because women are people and people are sexist? What is it you want me to explain? If someone calls something sexist and it was produced by a women, earlier discussion not withstanding, it is. #5, women being sexist to ANYONE is entirely relevant to this discussion. The discussion is: "women are less sexist." Therefore ANY sexism on the part of a women is fair game.
mherkender 14y ago
Don't we all experience moments where our jobs require things of us that our moral compass disagrees with? The fact that women were involved (which is incredibly vague by the way) says just about nothing of the women or men that find this kind of thing sexist. It's not like sexism at tech trade shows is a new thing, but there always seems to be people to defend it. They are using naked women as attention-getting displays to sell laptop batteries to a largely male audience. Forget blaming the company, maybe they had to do it to sell their product, but surely there is some sexism involved here.