3 ms·

You seem to have misconstrued what I attempted to say. I was confused as to what was even being discussed, hence my request for clarification. I wasn't sure if

You seem to have misconstrued what I attempted to say. I was confused as to what was even being discussed, hence my request for clarification. I wasn't sure if the OP was discussing "disdain towards women" (what I call sexism, henceforth sexism[fajitas]) or "women making different choices than men" (henceforth sexism[pron]). I do find sexism[pron] innocuous and I take it you disagree. I do hope to prevent you from imposing your will on those women who behave in ways you disagree with. But that belief is completely unrelated to the question of whether a larger % of people will assume the word "sexism" means sexism[fajitas] or sexism[pron]. It's based solely on the underlying properties that sexism represents. Sexism must be fought whether or not it entails "disdain towards women", or merely social tradition. This is the exact rhetorical fallacy I'm describing. Let me make the fallacy obvious: "Murder must be fought whether or not it entails 'taking the life of another against their will', or merely 'puppies'." If you want to make two separate arguments that both of these concepts should be opposed, do it. But recognize that they are two separate concepts, even if you use the same word to describe them. Here are a couple of articles you might find handy: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_substance/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_subst...

dalke 12y ago
I agree with pron. You wrote "Women are simply less productive, due to exiting the workforce. There is neither distaste nor bias." The question is, why do they leave the workforce? If it's because of a self-reinforcing belief that they less valuable solely because they are women, then it's sexist. If such a belief is widespread and entrenched, it means the culture is sexist. Eg, if it's because women want to take a year off after the first child, then one interpretation is that it's a choice. But the question is, why don't the men want to take a year off? Is it due to cultural expectations? Is it that mean get paid more because of a built-in expectation that they will be the ones supporting the family? If so, there's a sexist cultural component to the decision. Hence the more feminist cultures have parental leave. Sweden, where I live, has paid leave for both parents, and some of the leave can only be taken by the mother and some only by the father. That doesn't mean that the leave is split 50-50. More women take time off than men. One interpretation is that Swedish culture is still sexist. It does bring a smile to my face to see the number of fathers out with their kids, compared to what I'm used to from the US. Or as another example, consider one of the famous cases of sexual discrimination at work. Quoting from the EEOC, "In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., a shipyard company employed a female welder who was continually subjected to nude and partially nude pictures posted by her male co-workers. The men posted these pictures not only in common areas, but also in places where the victim would have to encounter them, including her tool box. The men referred to the victim as "baby," "sugar," "momma," and "dear." In addition, the men wrote obscene graffiti directed at the victim all over the plant. The men also made numerous suggestive and offensive remarks to the victim concerning her body and the pictures posted on the walls. The victim complained about this atmosphere of harassment on a number of occasions, but the company's supervisory personnel provided little or no assistance. The court found this conduct violated Title VII because the plaintiff belonged to a protected category, was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, the harassment was based on sex, it affected a term or condition of her employment, and the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take remedial action." If most women exit the workforce in order to avoid harassment caused solely because of their gender, then it's due to sexist reasons. Hence why pron and I disagree with your assessment that "Normally the term [sexist] implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be productive." The sexual harassment in Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. had little to do with her being productive or not, but because she was a woman. I have little doubt that being the most productive person in the group would still have resulted in sexist behavior, and in any case if she were not appropriately productive she would not have been promoted to first-class welder. Pron wrote "Sexism is any gender based discrimination that is not 100% provably biologically justified." Such a definition is in close agreement with the EEOC definition of discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace. (They aren't the same; I assume that "100% provably biologically justified" is for wet nurses and surrogate mothers, while the EEOC allows a wider range of 'bona fide' reasons to discriminate on the basis of sex, like only hiring men as Chippendale dancers.) Your definition is not, which leads to the strange observation that you must think that some forms of sexual discrimination which are due to the victim's gender are not actually sexist.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  The sexual harassment in Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. had little to do with her being productive or not, but because she was a woman. This certainly qualifies as "some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women", and hence qualifies as sexism[fajitas]. In contrast, women exiting the workforce due to a desire to be viewed more positively by others (i.e. "cultural expectations") is sexism[pron] but not sexism[fajitas]. I don't know why you and pron are devoting so much effort to arguing for a particular definition. Apart from making it easier to fool people by fallaciously conflating sexism[fajitas] and sexism[pron], which I'm sure you aren't trying to do, why argue over semantics at all?
  - dalke 12y ago
    You are the one interested in 'arguing for a particular definition'. You started this branch with: "Sexism" is an odd word to use. Normally the term implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be productive. Hence you need to answer the question for yourself. What are you spending so much time arguing for a particular definition? My point, which you have not observed, is that sexism is independent of productivity, and independent of specifically a 'distaste for women'. Indeed, using 'productivity' as part of your explanation makes it wrong. It is sexist to hire only women as nurses, elementary school teachers, and secretaries. The sexism does not arise from any particular "distaste for women." To the contrary, some people believe that women are innately better for, say, caregiver positions than men. This is a sexist viewpoint with no factual underpinnings. Your definition does not encompass that meaning, so must be incorrect.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
pron 12y ago
I'm honored that you credit me with the authorship of the term sexism, but, unfortunately, I am not the originator of the concept. There is no sexism[pron] but simply "sexism"[1]. There is no rhetorical fallacy here, but the mere misuse of the term sexism by you, and it really doesn't matter how many people make that mistake. While you bring up murder and puppies as an example, you are simply mistaken in the meaning of the word sexism. You make an analogy to murder -- which implies intent -- while a more proper analogy is killing -- which does not. Killing is bad even if the deaths lack malice. Murder is worse than killing, but only when judgement is concerned. If killing is widespread (as sexism is), people care about stopping it more than passing judgement. The problem with sexism is, that unlike killing, those who are not its victims (and sometimes even its victims) are blind to it (although, to be sure, pointing out sexism often feels like judgment -- just as accusation in indirect killing does). The articles you linked to are irrelevant -- when I say "sexism", I simply mean sexism (which I've even defined), while you insist on a wrong meaning of a word simply because you feel like it. There is little point in arguing about that. > I do hope to prevent you from imposing your will on those women who behave in ways you disagree with. Ah, this is where things become interesting, and because people here like their science fiction, let's talk sci-fi. Did the people living in the Matrix choose to live there or didn't know other possibilities existed? Was there liberation coerced or their subjugation, even though the former was quite inconvenience while the latter was as tranquil as slipping into a coma? If society, over millennia, imbues people with an idea that benefits some and harms others, so much so that the oppressed can't see their oppression, isn't it the moral duty of those who can see outside the matrix to point it out, even if this entails some discomfort? How free is someones choice, if they've been raised to make it? You should know that even during slavery in the US, many slavery supporters claimed that at least some slaves liked their position in society -- which makes sense because they weren't exposed to a different reality. Now, you should realize that this isn't rhetoric but quite the opposite. It is rhetoric that keeps most of us blind to reality. Once you start seeing how power structures in society work, that they ensure that the powerful stay in power -- even without any conscious, sinister conspiracy behind them, but a constant drip of ideas -- you'll feel like physicians must have felt when germs where discovered, and the true nature of many illnesses was finally truly seen. The reason why feminism is so often concerned with words and rhetoric is precisely this. Being forced to actively thing about something so seemingly "natural" as language is a good mechanism of curing our blindness. If you live in the matrix, to see it you must question everything -- the more "innocuous" the better. It's so prevalent that it's hard to spot unless you try very hard. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

dalke 12y ago

I agree with pron. You wrote "Women are simply less productive, due to exiting the workforce. There is neither distaste nor bias." The question is, why do they leave the workforce? If it's because of a self-reinforcing belief that they less valuable solely because they are women, then it's sexist. If such a belief is widespread and entrenched, it means the culture is sexist. Eg, if it's because women want to take a year off after the first child, then one interpretation is that it's a choice. But the question is, why don't the men want to take a year off? Is it due to cultural expectations? Is it that mean get paid more because of a built-in expectation that they will be the ones supporting the family? If so, there's a sexist cultural component to the decision. Hence the more feminist cultures have parental leave. Sweden, where I live, has paid leave for both parents, and some of the leave can only be taken by the mother and some only by the father. That doesn't mean that the leave is split 50-50. More women take time off than men. One interpretation is that Swedish culture is still sexist. It does bring a smile to my face to see the number of fathers out with their kids, compared to what I'm used to from the US. Or as another example, consider one of the famous cases of sexual discrimination at work. Quoting from the EEOC, "In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., a shipyard company employed a female welder who was continually subjected to nude and partially nude pictures posted by her male co-workers. The men posted these pictures not only in common areas, but also in places where the victim would have to encounter them, including her tool box. The men referred to the victim as "baby," "sugar," "momma," and "dear." In addition, the men wrote obscene graffiti directed at the victim all over the plant. The men also made numerous suggestive and offensive remarks to the victim concerning her body and the pictures posted on the walls. The victim complained about this atmosphere of harassment on a number of occasions, but the company's supervisory personnel provided little or no assistance. The court found this conduct violated Title VII because the plaintiff belonged to a protected category, was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, the harassment was based on sex, it affected a term or condition of her employment, and the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take remedial action." If most women exit the workforce in order to avoid harassment caused solely because of their gender, then it's due to sexist reasons. Hence why pron and I disagree with your assessment that "Normally the term [sexist] implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be productive." The sexual harassment in Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. had little to do with her being productive or not, but because she was a woman. I have little doubt that being the most productive person in the group would still have resulted in sexist behavior, and in any case if she were not appropriately productive she would not have been promoted to first-class welder. Pron wrote "Sexism is any gender based discrimination that is not 100% provably biologically justified." Such a definition is in close agreement with the EEOC definition of discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace. (They aren't the same; I assume that "100% provably biologically justified" is for wet nurses and surrogate mothers, while the EEOC allows a wider range of 'bona fide' reasons to discriminate on the basis of sex, like only hiring men as Chippendale dancers.) Your definition is not, which leads to the strange observation that you must think that some forms of sexual discrimination which are due to the victim's gender are not actually sexist.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
The sexual harassment in Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. had little to do with her being productive or not, but because she was a woman. This certainly qualifies as "some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women", and hence qualifies as sexism[fajitas]. In contrast, women exiting the workforce due to a desire to be viewed more positively by others (i.e. "cultural expectations") is sexism[pron] but not sexism[fajitas]. I don't know why you and pron are devoting so much effort to arguing for a particular definition. Apart from making it easier to fool people by fallaciously conflating sexism[fajitas] and sexism[pron], which I'm sure you aren't trying to do, why argue over semantics at all?
- dalke 12y ago
  You are the one interested in 'arguing for a particular definition'. You started this branch with: "Sexism" is an odd word to use. Normally the term implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be productive. Hence you need to answer the question for yourself. What are you spending so much time arguing for a particular definition? My point, which you have not observed, is that sexism is independent of productivity, and independent of specifically a 'distaste for women'. Indeed, using 'productivity' as part of your explanation makes it wrong. It is sexist to hire only women as nurses, elementary school teachers, and secretaries. The sexism does not arise from any particular "distaste for women." To the contrary, some people believe that women are innately better for, say, caregiver positions than men. This is a sexist viewpoint with no factual underpinnings. Your definition does not encompass that meaning, so must be incorrect.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

pron 12y ago

I'm honored that you credit me with the authorship of the term sexism, but, unfortunately, I am not the originator of the concept. There is no sexism[pron] but simply "sexism"[1]. There is no rhetorical fallacy here, but the mere misuse of the term sexism by you, and it really doesn't matter how many people make that mistake. While you bring up murder and puppies as an example, you are simply mistaken in the meaning of the word sexism. You make an analogy to murder -- which implies intent -- while a more proper analogy is killing -- which does not. Killing is bad even if the deaths lack malice. Murder is worse than killing, but only when judgement is concerned. If killing is widespread (as sexism is), people care about stopping it more than passing judgement. The problem with sexism is, that unlike killing, those who are not its victims (and sometimes even its victims) are blind to it (although, to be sure, pointing out sexism often feels like judgment -- just as accusation in indirect killing does). The articles you linked to are irrelevant -- when I say "sexism", I simply mean sexism (which I've even defined), while you insist on a wrong meaning of a word simply because you feel like it. There is little point in arguing about that. > I do hope to prevent you from imposing your will on those women who behave in ways you disagree with. Ah, this is where things become interesting, and because people here like their science fiction, let's talk sci-fi. Did the people living in the Matrix choose to live there or didn't know other possibilities existed? Was there liberation coerced or their subjugation, even though the former was quite inconvenience while the latter was as tranquil as slipping into a coma? If society, over millennia, imbues people with an idea that benefits some and harms others, so much so that the oppressed can't see their oppression, isn't it the moral duty of those who can see outside the matrix to point it out, even if this entails some discomfort? How free is someones choice, if they've been raised to make it? You should know that even during slavery in the US, many slavery supporters claimed that at least some slaves liked their position in society -- which makes sense because they weren't exposed to a different reality. Now, you should realize that this isn't rhetoric but quite the opposite. It is rhetoric that keeps most of us blind to reality. Once you start seeing how power structures in society work, that they ensure that the powerful stay in power -- even without any conscious, sinister conspiracy behind them, but a constant drip of ideas -- you'll feel like physicians must have felt when germs where discovered, and the true nature of many illnesses was finally truly seen. The reason why feminism is so often concerned with words and rhetoric is precisely this. Being forced to actively thing about something so seemingly "natural" as language is a good mechanism of curing our blindness. If you live in the matrix, to see it you must question everything -- the more "innocuous" the better. It's so prevalent that it's hard to spot unless you try very hard. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism