5 ms·

There are several definitions of sexism, one is essentially "taking someone's sex or gender into account when making a decision". This appears to be the definit

by rmc 13y ago

There are several definitions of sexism, one is essentially "taking someone's sex or gender into account when making a decision". This appears to be the definition the author is using by calling quotas "sexist". It's a very simple, easy to understand, easy to identify definition. It also means that in many cases (e.g. choosing who shoul speak at a tech conference), men can be the victims of sexism. There's another definition, which is "actions that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among the sexes is sexist". Right now, if modern UK life was a video game, "male" would be an easier difficulty level than "female". It doesn't mean it's easy, just that it's easier. Many people, including this author did work hard. But there are statistically less problems for the "male" group. Sexist actions are actions that re-enforced that imbalance. This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/female/male/g and make it just as sexist. (There are some cases where there's an inbalance in favour of women, any men here ever took up knitting or crochet? Try getting involved in that, you'll see things from the other side)

tomp 13y ago
In general I agree with what you're saying and I think that your second definition of sexism is very insightful and something everybody should consider and think about (even if they ultimately find they cannot support this definition). However, I would like to point out that whether being "male" makes you play life on easier difficulty than "female" depends to a large extent to how you weight different outcomes of the game. While it's probably still true that being male makes it easier to earn more money (especially now, when all the geeky, previously unpopular, mostly male programmers cashed in), but it also makes it easier to be homeless and to die sooner (homicide/suicide).
- rmc 13y ago
  > "While it's probably still true that being male makes it easier to earn more money (especially now, when all the geeky, previously unpopular, mostly male programmers cashed in), but it also makes it easier to be homeless and to die sooner" Oh sure. My whole point is "It's complicated". w.r.t. to suicide I think part of that is societal gender roles. We tell 5 year old boys to stop crying because "big boys don't cry", then we wonder why 20 year old men kill themselves rather than seek mental health. "Institutional power imbalances" is one bad sexist thing. "Gender roles" (boys don't cry, women shouldn't do maths) are another bad sexist thing. It's all complicated and connected.
- epi8 13y ago
  That's a very important distinction that the "easy-mode" metaphors don't really take into account. A good word for it is "intersectionality" (though please note that many people will define intersectionality as only applying to marginalized groups): it's the various ways all of one's "labels" (gender, class, ethnicity, race, etc) interact, and it's something to keep in mind while having these discussions. The reason is that there isn't one axis along which we can measure "more" or "less" oppressed or disenfranchised. Men tend to lose custody battles more frequently, for instance. That said, you can still look at a group of people and say something along the lines of "in such-and-such context, members of the first group tend to be more successful at this goal than members of a second group". Phrasing it this way, I think, tends to deflect the "us-vs-them" or "men-vs-women" mentality that crops up fairly often in these discussions (especially when they take place online, where anonymity and lack of non-textual clues make it more difficult to have a civil conversation). The point of all this is this: if you are a man, you are more likely to kill yourself or be homeless, and that is a HUGE PROBLEM. If you are a black man, by some accounting, you are more likely to be raped than a white woman (because black men are disproportionately sent to prison), and that is a HUGE PROBLEM. But neither of these problems make the discrimination faced by women in the STEM fields less of a problem, it just means that we have many huge problems on our hands. When you are a member of group A, and group A tends to be more successful than group B (so, male programmers as group A and female programmers as group B), I think it is your obligation to ask _why_ there is this statistical skew, and if the answer is "systematic discrimination due to power imbalance", work to correct it, irrespective of how your group fares in other such comparisons. That doesn't mean that your group faring poorly in these comparisons is not unfair, because it totally is. It just means that there is a complex web of privileges* and disadvantages that we _all_ need to help untangle. (*You didn't think I was going to get through five paragraphs about identity politics without whipping out the P-word, did you?)
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/female/male/g and make it just as sexist. I think it's more Darwinian than that. No one comes to the realization one day that they benefit from institutional power dynamics and then sets out to change the system to their own detriment. The reason men want more women in technology is not that they're worried about women -- not as a first class objective. It's rather that they believe they (and the society they live in) will benefit from more gender diversity in the industry. The fact that this will also produce benefits for women is a happy harmony because it means we don't have to fight about it. Which is why the "reinforces institutionalized power structure" definition is such a loser. It frames the issue as battle of the sexes rather than everyone cooperating to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. So then instead of everyone finding a way to help women without hurting men, you create two sides where one is trying to help women by hurting men and the other starts throwing rocks from the top of the mountain because they don't want to be hurt. Which doesn't benefit anybody.
- rmc 13y ago
  Removing an unfair advantage might make it harder/less easier for men. But that's OK.

by rmc 13y ago

tomp 13y ago

In general I agree with what you're saying and I think that your second definition of sexism is very insightful and something everybody should consider and think about (even if they ultimately find they cannot support this definition). However, I would like to point out that whether being "male" makes you play life on easier difficulty than "female" depends to a large extent to how you weight different outcomes of the game. While it's probably still true that being male makes it easier to earn more money (especially now, when all the geeky, previously unpopular, mostly male programmers cashed in), but it also makes it easier to be homeless and to die sooner (homicide/suicide).

rmc 13y ago
> "While it's probably still true that being male makes it easier to earn more money (especially now, when all the geeky, previously unpopular, mostly male programmers cashed in), but it also makes it easier to be homeless and to die sooner" Oh sure. My whole point is "It's complicated". w.r.t. to suicide I think part of that is societal gender roles. We tell 5 year old boys to stop crying because "big boys don't cry", then we wonder why 20 year old men kill themselves rather than seek mental health. "Institutional power imbalances" is one bad sexist thing. "Gender roles" (boys don't cry, women shouldn't do maths) are another bad sexist thing. It's all complicated and connected.
epi8 13y ago
That's a very important distinction that the "easy-mode" metaphors don't really take into account. A good word for it is "intersectionality" (though please note that many people will define intersectionality as only applying to marginalized groups): it's the various ways all of one's "labels" (gender, class, ethnicity, race, etc) interact, and it's something to keep in mind while having these discussions. The reason is that there isn't one axis along which we can measure "more" or "less" oppressed or disenfranchised. Men tend to lose custody battles more frequently, for instance. That said, you can still look at a group of people and say something along the lines of "in such-and-such context, members of the first group tend to be more successful at this goal than members of a second group". Phrasing it this way, I think, tends to deflect the "us-vs-them" or "men-vs-women" mentality that crops up fairly often in these discussions (especially when they take place online, where anonymity and lack of non-textual clues make it more difficult to have a civil conversation). The point of all this is this: if you are a man, you are more likely to kill yourself or be homeless, and that is a HUGE PROBLEM. If you are a black man, by some accounting, you are more likely to be raped than a white woman (because black men are disproportionately sent to prison), and that is a HUGE PROBLEM. But neither of these problems make the discrimination faced by women in the STEM fields less of a problem, it just means that we have many huge problems on our hands. When you are a member of group A, and group A tends to be more successful than group B (so, male programmers as group A and female programmers as group B), I think it is your obligation to ask _why_ there is this statistical skew, and if the answer is "systematic discrimination due to power imbalance", work to correct it, irrespective of how your group fares in other such comparisons. That doesn't mean that your group faring poorly in these comparisons is not unfair, because it totally is. It just means that there is a complex web of privileges* and disadvantages that we _all_ need to help untangle. (*You didn't think I was going to get through five paragraphs about identity politics without whipping out the P-word, did you?)

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

> This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/female/male/g and make it just as sexist. I think it's more Darwinian than that. No one comes to the realization one day that they benefit from institutional power dynamics and then sets out to change the system to their own detriment. The reason men want more women in technology is not that they're worried about women -- not as a first class objective. It's rather that they believe they (and the society they live in) will benefit from more gender diversity in the industry. The fact that this will also produce benefits for women is a happy harmony because it means we don't have to fight about it. Which is why the "reinforces institutionalized power structure" definition is such a loser. It frames the issue as battle of the sexes rather than everyone cooperating to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. So then instead of everyone finding a way to help women without hurting men, you create two sides where one is trying to help women by hurting men and the other starts throwing rocks from the top of the mountain because they don't want to be hurt. Which doesn't benefit anybody.

rmc 13y ago
Removing an unfair advantage might make it harder/less easier for men. But that's OK.