Brooklynite ([info]brooklynite) wrote in [info]feminist,
@ 2006-07-19 14:08:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Definitions of Sexism.
(bumping this up from a comments thread, because it seems like it'd be of general interest)

There's been a lot of discussion in the comments on this post about whether men's behavior toward other men can be sexist, or women's behavior toward other women. A lot of folks have made reference to the community's code of conduct, so I went back and took a look at it.Here's the relevant passage:
We do not recognize "reverse" sexism, ie the idea that women are capable of acting thinking in a sexist manner toward men. The reason for this is that women do not, as a group, hold privilege or institutional power over men. While women may be individually prejudiced against men, and may even act against them, it is an instance of prejudice, not sexism.
Unless I'm missing something, this just says that a woman's prejudice against men --- so-called "man-hating," for instance --- isn't sexism, because it's not backed up by "privilege or institutional power."

But a lot of what's being talking about in that thread is different --- men in positions of privilege deploying sexism against men who don't conform to traditional gender roles, and (in one of the sub-threads) women who are backed by institutional power deploying sexism against other women.

It seems to me that if we say, as one commenter has, that "sexism is when a male exhibits prejudice against a female," we're disregarding the institutional nature of gender bias, and the ways in which sexism is deployed to enforce gender conformity. (And it also seems to me that such claims aren't supported by the community's code of conduct.)

Thoughts?


(Post a new comment)


[info]_queenoflizards
2006-07-19 06:31 pm UTC (link)
I'll add another aspect, and that is the binary gender system. There are transgendered people, transexual people, intersexed, and many other labels and variations on the idea of gender. If a straight woman who was born bioligically female is consistent in discriminating against mtf transexuals, for example, is this not sexism? To use her position of power to keep other wimmin down?

I had commented before that maybe there should be such a thing as 'genderism' in the case of people who were born biologically of a different gender than they were meant to be and identify as a woman. But I definitely think this would be a case of prejudice + power.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]sabonasi
2006-07-19 06:35 pm UTC (link)
Genderism? I've heard transphobia and cisgender privilege used to describe the phenomenon. I'd say you're getting into slightly different territory there, but that would be a bit fool hardy given that transphobia and sexist gender roles requently go hand in hand.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]goodlookinout
2006-07-19 06:37 pm UTC (link)
That would be transphobia.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]metahara
2006-07-19 07:52 pm UTC (link)
OT

is there another email adress for the mods? the one link is sent back with the notice that the box is full...more than 3 days in a row.

and On topic:
can you give a mod note for sexist language in the comments here?
i hope it is not considered acceptable to call a woman a "man-hater".

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]goodlookinout, 2006-07-19 07:57 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]metahara, 2006-07-19 08:01 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]goodlookinout, 2006-07-19 08:25 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]_queenoflizards
2006-07-19 08:16 pm UTC (link)
I appreciate that, but this is my thinking. A person can be a woman of color and have to deal with racism. But as a woman she may also have to deal with sexism. One does not cancel out the other, and being a person of color does not make her any less female.

By that thinking, I don't see why a mtf transgendered person is not able to suffer from sexism. And if that is the case, then I wonder where exactly the line is for who would be able to claim sexist treatment and who wouldnt. Only in a binary gender system is there a clear definition for this, in my opinion. And a lot of people's experiences don't fall into such clear cut categories.

What would we tell a person of fluid gender, by this community's definition? That they can be treated the same way two different days, and depending on their dress and how they identified that day it would be sexism one day and not the next? That seems strange and convoluted to me. I think feminism needs to be aware of the oppressiveness of the binary gender system, and see that not all women fit neatly into the 'full time female' box. And that doesn't make them any less a victem or any less in need of protection.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]goodlookinout, 2006-07-19 08:24 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_queenoflizards, 2006-07-20 10:20 am UTC (Expand)
Mod note - [info]celesteh, 2006-07-20 10:54 am UTC (Expand)
just speaking as myself - [info]celesteh, 2006-07-20 11:21 am UTC (Expand)
Re: just speaking as myself - [info]_queenoflizards, 2006-07-20 01:08 pm UTC (Expand)
another mod speaking against herself - [info]crafting_change, 2006-07-21 04:21 am UTC (Expand)

[info]sabonasi
2006-07-19 06:33 pm UTC (link)
Well, you have "internalized sexism", which is when a woman perpetuates sexist ideas at another woman. i.e. Ann Coulter

And while a man can't experience sexism, he can be limited by gender roles. And gender roles are often sexist against women even if the limitation is being directed against a man. i.e. The OP in previous post was told that he needed to cut his hair to look more manly. This implies that one needed to be a man to do the job, and this is sexist against women.

One way I look at it is to ask, "Does the idea being presented have a backing in institutionalized sexism?"

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]goodlookinout
2006-07-19 06:41 pm UTC (link)
Exactly.

And just to further one point a bit, when a man is being "discriminated against" for crossing gender roles or doing something seen as feminine, it can also be an example of how homophobia intersects with sexism, as gay men are often discriminated against for being "like women" (and conversely, men who don't act "masculine" enough or act "feminine" are often assumed to be gay).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]disquesinge
2006-07-19 07:04 pm UTC (link)
and then in the gay male community there is a lot of irritation and annoyance towards the feminine-acting men. Statements like "I hate going to pride because it is so queen-y" or "Christ, why are there no real men in the gay community"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]neurotic_orchid, 2006-07-19 08:35 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - myredhat, 2006-07-20 11:51 am UTC (Expand)

[info]sabonasi
2006-07-19 07:06 pm UTC (link)
Oh definitely. Sexism, transphobia, and homophobia are all interconnected in society and used to support each other.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]brooklynite
2006-07-19 07:36 pm UTC (link)
But why say that a man who has been discriminated against on the basis of his gender by a male supremacist power structure hasn't experienced sexism? What does that distinction get us?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]sabonasi, 2006-07-19 07:49 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]goodlookinout, 2006-07-19 07:55 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]brooklynite, 2006-07-19 07:58 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]madamjolie, 2006-07-19 08:19 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sabonasi, 2006-07-19 09:02 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]zestyping, 2006-07-20 12:32 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sabonasi, 2006-07-20 12:49 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]touchyphiliac, 2006-07-21 11:00 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sabonasi, 2006-07-20 01:11 am UTC (Expand)

[info]elliejay
2006-07-19 06:46 pm UTC (link)
It's not my community, so I have to play by the rules, but I certainly don't agree with them.

I think that such a specific definition is rather self-defeating-- it seems to me that it's specific to the point of exclusivity. I know that this isn't what anybody here meant by it, but it seems like something that isn't sexist by this specific definition is something we shouldn't even be concerned about.

In the case of the earlier post, I think that calling it sexist or not was totally secondary to the issue at hand-- he did experience judgment based on preconceived gender roles that he did not fit. And that's not sexist? Sounds to me like the definition of "sexism" has been twisted and altered to serve the needs of a very specific group of people.

The people represented by the rule DO represent the large majority of people suffering from what I personally consider to be sexism. It USUALLY is a man opressing a woman for her female traits. But I think that it's something I see all around me. And limiting the definition to something so specific doesn't do anything but exclude people we don't perceive to be part of our cause.

And that's something I don't agree with.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]nerdpony
2006-07-19 06:55 pm UTC (link)
You basically just said what I wanted to say, just a lot more eloquently. Thanks. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]metahara
2006-07-19 07:02 pm UTC (link)
your missing the point that there is a dominant sex in most culures, just as thier is a dominant "race" in this culture.
if you are discrimated against by the non dominant culture or sex it is not the same a sex or race ism. The dominant in both situations have an entire social structure supporting their rights and inclusion. the deciding point between prejudice /discrimination and sexism or racism is the Power structure.

a man can charge a woman for sexual harrassment and discrimination. it still isn't sexism unless that occurred where there is not a patriarchal structure.
as for homophobia and gender bia discrimination - of course it exists and is rampant. is it sexism...If i have my facts correct, in the States, a gay male was allowed to vote when women were not.

incidientally:
When women got the vote

1900-1909

1869 - Wyoming Territory in the USA is the first place in the world to give votes to women.
1893 - New Zealand is the first country to give women the vote
1902 - Australia , although aboriginal women were not eligible to vote until 1967, when along with aboriginal men, they were granted full Citizenship.
1906 - Finland is the first country in Europe to give women the vote.
1917 - Russia
1918 - United Kingdom (partial), Germany, Canada , Austria
1920 - The USA , but not Native American women, who had to wait until
1925 - Italy
1928 - United Kingdom (full), Ireland
1930 - South Africa , but only to white women. Indian and 'coloured' women won the vote in 1984 and black women in 1994.
1931 - Spain
1932 - Brazil
1944 - France
1945 - Italy
1946 - Kenya, Palestine,
1947 - China, Pakistan,
1948 - Israel, Iraq,
1950 - India
1952 - Greece
1953 - Mexico
1956 - Egypt, Tunisia, Mauritius
1957 - Malaysia
1962 - Algeria
1971 - Switzerland
1974 - Jordan
1976 - Portugal
2001 - Bahrain

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]conceptual_tea, 2006-07-19 07:13 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]metahara, 2006-07-19 07:20 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]oslo, 2006-07-19 07:47 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]conceptual_tea, 2006-07-19 08:10 pm UTC (Expand)
completely off topic - [info]moontidemelody, 2006-07-19 08:23 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: completely off topic - [info]metahara, 2006-07-19 08:26 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]bleedingcherub
2006-07-19 09:29 pm UTC (link)
And that's not sexist? Sounds to me like the definition of "sexism" has been twisted and altered to serve the needs of a very specific group of people.

Bingo. I think we'd call men --> women sexism "institutional[ized] sexism" and the rest just "sexism."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]madamjolie, 2006-07-20 01:28 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]_queenoflizards, 2006-07-20 03:16 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]cerulean_me
2006-07-19 07:23 pm UTC (link)
I think that it's bullshit.

Women *DO* hold position of power and authority- and it's not "reverse sexism." Sexism is sexism, no matter which direction it's going. A former co-worker of mine was just such a man-hater, and the women in her mangement would get away with things that the men would not. Perhaps if it were your son, brother, father or husband with a boss like this you'd feel different.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]metahara
2006-07-19 07:31 pm UTC (link)
I have a son. Having a son did not change my definition of sexism. I was not tolerant of discrimation based on prejudice of any person before or since I've had my son, who is now 17. Being a other did not change the fact that i was born into a patriarchal society. Having a boy did not change the society i live in to Matriarchal.

IMHO the term man-hater is an offensive name calling. When a women uses the term it can be identified as intrasexism.

ot-
I wonder if there is a poet or writer who has dealt with intrasexism as well as Gwendolyn Brooks wrote about intraracism?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]belladonnalin, 2006-07-19 08:18 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]metahara, 2006-07-19 08:25 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]madamjolie
2006-07-19 08:08 pm UTC (link)
We are not talking about individual cases, however. Yes, that woman is prejudiced against men. No one is denying that. But she doesn't have this huge economy of power backing her up, either. She has a very small power, in so much as she is a manager. Out of the office, she's just as fucked as the rest of us.

We're talking about over-arching institutional systems of power. Because that one woman acts in a sexist manner it does not mean that, say, there is not an over arching cultural expectation in the US to have women socialized in a certain way (and then those traits are seen as negative).

In the all over world community, what position of power do we hold? We're not talking like "Well, some women are CEOs." It's more like "Mmm, 90% of CEOs are men and the women who are CEOs are often characterized as unfeminine demon beasts."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]brooklynite, 2006-07-19 08:15 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]madamjolie, 2006-07-19 08:24 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]brooklynite, 2006-07-19 09:01 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]madamjolie, 2006-07-20 01:20 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]brooklynite, 2006-07-20 02:04 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]madamjolie, 2006-07-20 01:22 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]touchyphiliac, 2006-07-21 11:03 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]melissataurus
2006-07-19 07:25 pm UTC (link)
Actually a man can charge a woman, or another man, with sexism via sexual harassment. At least he can legally.

I can't think of the woman sexually harassing man case right now, but the man against man is Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services.

The EEOC reports that men-initiated complaints against women are growing too.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]neurotic_orchid
2006-07-19 08:43 pm UTC (link)
I definitely believe that sexual harassment can be perpetrated by anyone towards anyone, regardless of gender. I'm still really unsure about sexism, though. I can't get my own thoughts sorted out.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]melissataurus, 2006-07-19 08:44 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]neurotic_orchid, 2006-07-19 09:33 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]je5s
2006-07-20 01:16 am UTC (link)
Sexual harrassment simply means that someone is harrassed because of their gender. Whether that kind of behavior constitutes sexism is exactly the point of much of the debate going on here, so I don't think that fact itself really furthers the argument in either direction. Probably worth noting though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]touchyphiliac, 2006-07-21 11:09 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]je5s, 2006-07-21 11:53 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]youcantfindme
2006-07-19 08:29 pm UTC (link)
Did that original post get deleted? Or is something wrong with the link?

I am pretty positive I know what community/thread you are referencing, but cant find the original post at all.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]brooklynite
2006-07-19 09:18 pm UTC (link)
Sorry --- I was talking about the "Sexism" thread in this community, two posts down.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]youcantfindme, 2006-07-19 09:46 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]lil_elf
2006-07-19 10:47 pm UTC (link)
Women can most certainly hold sexist views (sexist still being harming women). We are all taught sexism, not just men. I think there is a bit of a difference though between women with sexist views and men with sexist views because women do not benefit from them the way men do. If a woman thinks women shouldn't vote, that's sexist, yet she is still being harmed by having her opinions become less meaningful than a man's, whereas a man who thinks women shouldn't vote would gain the power of having his opinion matter more than approximately half the country.

(Reply to this)


[info]roselady
2006-07-20 03:34 am UTC (link)
I agree with some of the above statements, sexism is sexism is sexism, but a lot of the people in this community are under the oppinion that no woman anywhere can be wrong or indecent or coniving at any time, ever.

(Reply to this)


[info]poliphilo
2006-07-20 03:38 pm UTC (link)
I'm just bothered by dogmatism- of any kind. No-one owns the language and it's a fact that "out there" in the "real" world the word "Sexism" is used in ways that flout this community's definition of it.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…