2 ms·
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 certainl
by 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 agoYou 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]