M/F Sexism in the Atheist/Religious Community

[Aern Rakesh]

What evidence is there that a child is automatically more comfortable with women? Awaiting the research results.

I agree, Regina. Surely it is the persona/personality of the person involved?

And the man they asked to move was a nurse. If I've ever come across a 'tribe' of sympathetic men it's male nurses, and of course that's a blanket statement, but it was particularly my experience during my stay in hospital for a hip replacement.

I'm sorry, I have to agree that I find this action sexist. (I'm coming late to this thread, so the discussion may have moved on...)

I'm also reminded of the story of the racist white woman on a plane that protested in a loud voice to a steward when she found herself sitting next to a black man. The steward went away and conferred with his colleagues and then came back and said "Yes, we agree that it's intolerable to find yourself seated next to such a person." Then turning to the man he said, "Therefore, sir, if you'll come with me we've got a seat for you in first class!"

[Nicko]

Another example of sexism in action in the UK

Parliament's House of Lords comprises:

- 26 Bishops who are all men (women aren't allowed to be Church of England Bishops)
- 92 "hereditary peers", 90 of whom are men as it's rare for a woman to be a "hereditary peer"
- approx 700 "life peers", the majority are men but women can be made a "life peer" so this is less sexist than the above 2 categories.

Until we get rid of the Bishops & hereditary peers from the House of Lords, there's no chance of equal representation from men/women (and at a current ratio of 78% : 22% it has a long way to go).

There's an argument for abolishing the House of Lords completely but until/unless that happens, we're stuck with this sexist institution.

Good example.

lots of privilege going on there.

Certainly. But is it male privilege, or class privilege?

We could have a great little discussion there that would go round and around in circles arguing whose paradigm is better until the end of fucking time.

Or, we could simply observe that unaccountable ecclesiastical and aristocratic power in a secular democracy is idiotic and do away with it on those grounds.

[Fallible]

Can we do both? Can we? Can we? Pwease?

[xtraordinaryevidence]

I second that request. We don't have enough never-ending arguments on this topic!

[Robert_S]

http://www.blugah.com/48/boys_are_stupid

[archibald]

Institutional sexism refers to the explicit and implicit rules that govern sexist attitudes and beliefs which are generated and perpetuated by cultural norms and beliefs.

Mr.Samsa's use of the terminology is entirely correct here. Institutional sexism does indeed refer to the sexism embedded in the culture and norms - "institutions" in the sense that marriage is an institution for example - of society, and not a specific organisation within society.

Of course, if the term was "normative" or "cultural" sexism, the mistake probably wouldn't be made ...

Cheers Nicko. I agree that sometimes the choice of words doesn't help when the words picked are ambiguous.

Women have occasional privileges. A woman can strike a man and get away with it a lot more easily than a man can do the same to a woman for one example.

A stay-at-home mom is often more respected than a stay-at-home dad for another example.

These stem from a patriarchal view of the world that we have yet to let go of completely, but the grip is loosening over the long haul.

Men and women can also oppress members of the same gender by dismissing, discouraging, or outright shaming any tendency to deviate from whatever they think the gender norms ought to be. Anyone can use an institution to do this.

Those aren't examples of privilege though, Robert. It may seem like 'semantics' but there's a reason why it is correct to say that men have privilege and why it is meaningless to say that women have privilege. This reason is that it is a 'privilege' to get something for free based on the fact that society is set up to favour your group for entirely arbitrary reasons, but it is not a 'privilege' to get some "advantages" which you have to pay back in a number of other ways. Women are "allowed" to hit men because they are viewed as weak and inferior, whereas men are more likely to get promoted because they are viewed as stronger and smarter. Can you see the difference?

Personally, no, I can't, other than something entirely semantic. As I see it women have some privileges, men have some privileges, the latter to a much greater extent. There might be a question over what that extent is, in different situations, but I can't see a meaningful case for saying that only one gender has privileges.

For example, is 'generally the physically stronger' an 'entirely arbitrary reason' and if so does a man have to 'pay back' for privileges related to this by 'going to war'?

Seems one could make all sorts of cases in both directions.

Allowing, of course, that the general backdrop is more privileges for males, generally speaking.

[xtraordinaryevidence]

I have to say that's a pretty fun game (for flash). Pity about the title.

[Regina]

I have to say that's a pretty fun game (for flash). Pity about the title.

You might have hit on a business idea just now. Should be a hit at Skepchick conventions.

[xtraordinaryevidence]

I have to say that's a pretty fun game (for flash). Pity about the title.

You might have hit on a business idea just now. Should be a hit a Skepchick conventions.

Robert posts the game, you actually have the business idea, and I get the credit? Awesome!

[Regina]

We have to work out what trumps what.

[Robert_S]

We're either splitting linguistic hairs between privleges bestowed by the patriarchy which also harms men and advantages that come with a cost or there is a qualitative difference between privileges and advantages in which privilege trumps advantage.

[orpheus]

Women are never privileged. Such a statement is simply incoherent and nonsensical. It's like talking about dimensionless squares or pointy circles.

Are you serious?

Custody of children after separation.

Just one example, but that's all that is needed to refute your ridiculous assertion.

Not an example of women's privilege. That's benevolent sexism against women.

This is utterly twisted logic. And it's pervasive; I hear it a lot. And it creates a truly insidious problem: it's used to minimize, marginalize, and shift attention and away from the devastating effects on the man. This woman wants the kids. She gets the kids. She's happy. The man is completely devastated. Yet that doesn't matter; the "real" problem is that the woman got the kids because society views women as nurturers. I'm not saying this is not a real problem. But people use your logic to justify disregarding the horrible effects on men, and to say, in effect, that it's not really a problem worthy of attention.

It's like saying black people are privileged in that they get picked first in basketball games,

Yes, in that instance, they are privileged. In that instance, they benefit from societal views, and white people suffer from them. This is what I mean when I said your view is too simplistic. It's a small instance, but it illustrates the point.

or disabled people are privileged because they get car parks closer to the store.

Not a good analogy, because disabled people have a manifest physical need for the closer spaces. The woman who wants the kids doesn't.

The concept of privilege specifically and necessarily can only be applied to groups which hold the powerful positions in society.

And, again, your view of who holds power is far too simplistic. It allows for no nuance.

Incidentally, if it is that simplistic, that monolithic, how do we know if the balance tips? How are you measuring this supposed monolithic "power"? See how ridiculous it is? It seems to me that a more nuanced view is called for. In many situations - perhaps the vast majority of them - men hold more power than women in our society. I'm not denying that. But in some situations, women hold more power than men.

This doesn't mean that minorities don't have some "advantages", but the point is that these advantages always come with a hefty price and are essentially like backhanded compliments.

Yes, and that only happens to women, right? The (almost all male) coal miners and construction workers who do these terribly dangerous jobs do so because of the "advantage" conferred on men by the image of the big, strong man. And this "advantage" doesn't doesn't come with a hefty price?

[archibald]

I have to say that's a pretty fun game (for flash). Pity about the title.

In an ideal world, of course, the title would be just dandy, because it would just be a game in which some girls are depicted as throwing rocks at boys. As it is, the game itself potentially becomes a rock for 'mens' rightists' to throw at feminists. And so it goes around.

[babel]

I have to say that's a pretty fun game (for flash). Pity about the title.

In an ideal world, of course, the title would be just dandy, because it would just be a game in which some girls are depicted as throwing rocks at boys. As it is, the game itself potentially becomes a rock for 'mens' rightists' to throw at feminists. And so it goes around.

so it's a boomerang?

[Robert_S]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!_controversy

[xtraordinaryevidence]

I have to say that's a pretty fun game (for flash). Pity about the title.

In an ideal world, of course, the title would be just dandy, because it would just be a game in which some girls are depicted as throwing rocks at boys. As it is, the game itself potentially becomes a rock for 'mens' rightists' to throw at feminists. And so it goes around.

They could change the title to "Boys Who Persist In Hanging Around Areas Where Psychotic Girls Are Throwing Rocks At Them Are Stupid". Too wordy?

[maiforpeace]

I have to say that's a pretty fun game (for flash). Pity about the title.

In an ideal world, of course, the title would be just dandy, because it would just be a game in which some girls are depicted as throwing rocks at boys. As it is, the game itself potentially becomes a rock for 'mens' rightists' to throw at feminists. And so it goes around.

They could change the title to "Boys Who Persist In Hanging Around Areas Where Psychotic Girls Are Throwing Rocks At Them Are Stupid". Too wordy?

[Robert_S]

I have to say that's a pretty fun game (for flash). Pity about the title.

In an ideal world, of course, the title would be just dandy, because it would just be a game in which some girls are depicted as throwing rocks at boys. As it is, the game itself potentially becomes a rock for 'mens' rightists' to throw at feminists. And so it goes around.

They could change the title to "Boys Who Persist In Hanging Around Areas Where Psychotic Girls Are Throwing Rocks At Them Are Stupid". Too wordy?

Perpetuating a stereotype of dumb boys and smart girls.

[maiforpeace]

In an ideal world, of course, the title would be just dandy, because it would just be a game in which some girls are depicted as throwing rocks at boys. As it is, the game itself potentially becomes a rock for 'mens' rightists' to throw at feminists. And so it goes around.

They could change the title to "Boys Who Persist In Hanging Around Areas Where Psychotic Girls Are Throwing Rocks At Them Are Stupid". Too wordy?

Perpetuating a stereotype of dumb boys and smart girls.

Psychotic is smart?

There's a few slurs there...you want to keep count?

[SafeAsMilk]

Institutional sexism refers to the explicit and implicit rules that govern sexist attitudes and beliefs which are generated and perpetuated by cultural norms and beliefs.

Like, say, the cultural norm and belief that men are going to abuse a child sitting next to them on an airplane?

It doesn't work against the dominant and privileged groups in society. It's an instance of individual sexism when applied to specific circumstances, and the only institutional sexism is the benevolent sexism against women in that situation.

For example, choosing an Asian guy over an equally qualified white guy because of the unfounded belief that the white guy will be worse at maths is racist on an individual level. In terms of institutional racism, it is racist against the Asians because the institutional beliefs are generated by the racist attitudes regarding Asians and their supposed mathematical abilities.

So essentially the term is worthless, unless one's goal is to always disparage the group that usually has the advantage, even in situations where they are experiencing a clear disadvantage. I think it would be much more useful if the term referred to something like what the words actually suggest: sexism/racism that is broadly ingrained in a social structure, rather than specific instances of racism/sexism. To me that would suggest actual equality as a goal, instead of using words to play a one-sided blame game.