3 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean by "what we want is (one of) the consequences, not the causes". As to "it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a p

by mafribe 12y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "what we want is (one of) the consequences, not the causes". As to "it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a pejorative", sure, that's right. But in day-to-day English, "sexism" is pejorative, and that is not going to change any time soon. Therefore it is confusing to use the term when describing the biologically-based division of labour that was for 99.9999% of human history the only game in town. Calling this division sexist is therefore misleading to casual readers.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> I'm not sure what you mean by "what we want is (one of) the consequences, not the causes". OP wanted a society in which only one member of a couple is expected to work a full time job. That type of society was historically a consequence of sexism and would be difficult to achieve otherwise for the reasons I explained above. The causes of that sexism have nothing to do with it. > As to "it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a pejorative", sure, that's right. But in day-to-day English, "sexism" is pejorative, and that is not going to change any time soon. Therefore it is confusing to use the term when describing the biologically-based division of labour that was for 99.9999% of human history the only game in town. Statements that are accurate but confusing are inherently necessary as a precondition to identifying and eliminating the confusion.
- mafribe 12y ago
  There is nothing confusing about the biological basis of the historical division of labour. You are deliberately introducing this confusion so as to avoid confronting the relevant issues. One has one's opinions as to why you would do this ...
- mafribe 12y ago
  Or to put it differently: AnthonyMouse: 2+2 = 17 mafribe: saying 2+2 = 17 is confusing AnthonyMouse: we need to keep saying 2+2 = 17 so point out that a world where 2+2 = 17 holds is problematic.

by mafribe 12y ago

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> I'm not sure what you mean by "what we want is (one of) the consequences, not the causes". OP wanted a society in which only one member of a couple is expected to work a full time job. That type of society was historically a consequence of sexism and would be difficult to achieve otherwise for the reasons I explained above. The causes of that sexism have nothing to do with it. > As to "it just calls into question the legitimacy of "sexism" as a pejorative", sure, that's right. But in day-to-day English, "sexism" is pejorative, and that is not going to change any time soon. Therefore it is confusing to use the term when describing the biologically-based division of labour that was for 99.9999% of human history the only game in town. Statements that are accurate but confusing are inherently necessary as a precondition to identifying and eliminating the confusion.

mafribe 12y ago
There is nothing confusing about the biological basis of the historical division of labour. You are deliberately introducing this confusion so as to avoid confronting the relevant issues. One has one's opinions as to why you would do this ...
mafribe 12y ago
Or to put it differently: AnthonyMouse: 2+2 = 17 mafribe: saying 2+2 = 17 is confusing AnthonyMouse: we need to keep saying 2+2 = 17 so point out that a world where 2+2 = 17 holds is problematic.