What is Sexism and Does it Matter Ethically?

[Sculptor1]

In the UK anyone with the gall to express such a view would have been laughed at at any time after say 1980.

I would say that our current cycle of regression will take our social mores back about thirty years before then. The theist-inclined powers-that-be always resented the egalitarian and personal freedom movements of the 60s. Their descendants have always worked as a counter balance an now, with so much disruption, they have taken the chance to seize back control. A dangerous time for LGBTetc.

Yes there seems to be a dangerous cultural virus spawning out of Florida and other Southern states ATM.
The media is all about anti-woke, "cancel culture" nonsense, and people are lapping it up.

[Pattern-chaser]

...there seems to be a correlation between an alienation toward nature in cultures, and a disaffection towards natural sexual behaviour, which is often aptly called decadence, and which is characterized by self-indulgence. One of the primary dangers of self-indulgence is that it can lead to a lack of self-control and discipline. When we indulge in pleasures such as food, alcohol, or other vices, we may find it difficult to moderate our behaviour and make healthy choices. As we can see in our societies, this has led to physical and mental health problems, as well as difficulties in personal relationships and professional success. Another danger of self-indulgence is that it can lead to dependence or compulsive habits. When we become accustomed to the pleasure and stimulation provided by certain vices or indulgences, we may find it difficult to stop or moderate our behaviour.

From what I have read — and understood — of chewybrian's posts, Stoic thought offers a positive alternative to the kinds of behaviour you describe. I like to think/hope that other approaches can/could do the same too?

[Pattern-chaser]

I am surprised to hear, what I would call out-of-date views, in a staff room. I am already 63, and never once heard a person argue that women ought to be at home in any work situation.
What year was such a view expressed? What country? What state.

In the UK anyone with the gall to express such a view would have been laughed at at any time after say 1980. Surely not in a staffroom full of middle class people!!

I was surprised by the argument in the staff room. But I have come across many people who do have some outdated ideas even among middle class people, even in the twentieth first century. You might be surprised at all the possibilities and I would not have known if a teacher hadn't mentioned it to me. I find that often the unacceptable views occur behind the scenes. For example, there may be lip service to policies but if you dig deeper there is a lot going on.

It's easy to forget the importance of upbringing in these circumstances. And I don't refer to the overt teaching we get from our parents or teachers. I mean the way we absorb the values of the society in which we are raised. We do it unconsciously, long before we are mature enough to consider the values we are unknowingly adopting. We absorb it uncritically, along with everything else we are learning about the world we have so recently been born into.

So I was raised a profound racist, although neither my Mum nor my teachers ever said anything overtly racist to me. We all — yes, everybody, adults and children too! — laughed at people with black skin, we called them names, and we considered them less than we were, in every way. The TV programmes of the time, in the UK, reflect these attitudes clearly and strongly.

I dare say anyone else raised in the UK, around that time, was similarly 'programmed'. I have worked to suppress these vile ideas all my life, but they can never be properly expunged. It's because they were learned prior to the development of our critical faculties, so they are accepted without question, as being right and proper. I think this is why such things as racism can take many generations to get rid of, if they can be got rid of at all. Those values that are absorbed so early in life...



Oh, and back to the main topic: sexism is absorbed in exactly the same way I have described, and it is equally impossible to completely erase. I only described my childhood experience of learning to be a racist because it is more visible to me, in my mind. Sexism is just as good an example as racism. All the -isms share a lot in common, I think. None of it very wholesome...

[JackDaydream]

I am surprised to hear, what I would call out-of-date views, in a staff room. I am already 63, and never once heard a person argue that women ought to be at home in any work situation.
What year was such a view expressed? What country? What state.

In the UK anyone with the gall to express such a view would have been laughed at at any time after say 1980. Surely not in a staffroom full of middle class people!!

I was surprised by the argument in the staff room. But I have come across many people who do have some outdated ideas even among middle class people, even in the twentieth first century. You might be surprised at all the possibilities and I would not have known if a teacher hadn't mentioned it to me. I find that often the unacceptable views occur behind the scenes. For example, there may be lip service to policies but if you dig deeper there is a lot going on.

It's easy to forget the importance of upbringing in these circumstances. And I don't refer to the overt teaching we get from our parents or teachers. I mean the way we absorb the values of the society in which we are raised. We do it unconsciously, long before we are mature enough to consider the values we are unknowingly adopting. We absorb it uncritically, along with everything else we are learning about the world we have so recently been born into.

So I was raised a profound racist, although neither my Mum nor my teachers ever said anything overtly racist to me. We all — yes, everybody, adults and children too! — laughed at people with black skin, we called them names, and we considered them less than we were, in every way. The TV programmes of the time, in the UK, reflect these attitudes clearly and strongly.

I dare say anyone else raised in the UK, around that time, was similarly 'programmed'. I have worked to suppress these vile ideas all my life, but they can never be properly expunged. It's because they were learned prior to the development of our critical faculties, so they are accepted without question, as being right and proper. I think this is why such things as racism can take many generations to get rid of, if they can be got rid of at all. Those values that are absorbed so early in life...



Oh, and back to the main topic: sexism is absorbed in exactly the same way I have described, and it is equally impossible to completely erase. I only described my childhood experience of learning to be a racist because it is more visible to me, in my mind. Sexism is just as good an example as racism. All the -isms share a lot in common, I think. None of it very wholesome...

You are correct in your emphasis on upbringing in the way isms are transmitted. My parents were not racist or particularly sexist but with some contradictions. My mother had leanings towards feminism but with fairly strong ideas about stereotypes. Catholicism came into it and both my parents believed that sex outside of marriage was wrongful and that abortion was wrongful. My parents were strongly homophobic and were perturbed by trans issues in the news.

Being at university, I was aware of women's perspectives on abortion and there was a strong gay scene and I felt unable to tell my parents about certain friends I had. I certainly didn't tell them that I went to gay pubs. I was still going to church at the time and some of the clashes I was seeing in values were a large factor leading me to question religion. I knew of gay priests and priests who had affairs in the Catholic church but I didn't realise that the Vatican has specific documents about gender change being wrongful. However, that would be consistent with the ideas about abortion and bioethics in the church. I did go to other churches, including some which were extremely fundamentalist, and came across people who were expressing strongly homophobic and transphobic ideas. So, while such attitudes are not exclusive to religious believers it does appear that many isms have their roots in religious worldviews although I am not sure to what extent the anti-woke or cancel sits inside or outside of this, and it is probably variable.

[LuckyR]

No, blacks are more likely to be arrested for committing a crime. Very different.

Some would take this to mean that blacks are more likely to have committed a crime; others that it is because they are black that they are inherently criminal.
Others would say that in our prodominantly white society that the arrests are due to a deep assumption of this inherent failing, and that whites tend to see blacks in negative contexts all the time. They will go further to demonstrate that unconsious prejudice exists through scientific investigations.

It may well be that due to disadvantages in job application, and deprivation (which there is no doubt about) that indeed blacks turn to crime due to limited choices..

Whatever the truth of this, for each individual person it is only fair to try to put aside your biases, and recognise some inherent bias if you are ever called upon to judge a person.

I see that I was too brief in my comment and thus created confusion. Black neighborhoods are disproportionately policed, thus the police arrest blacks out of proportion with the number of crimes they commit. The police then turn around and say hey look at all of the criminals in these nlack neighborhoods, let's put even more police there AND let act more aggressively there. Fast forward to George Floyd.

As to judging individuals, ideally they should be judged as individuals, ie excluding any groups they belong to. For example we are all members of countless groups. A job candidate could be black, heterosexual, married, young, college educated, a convicted felon, has changed jobs frequently. All of those descriptions could be a group. Only the last three have anything to do with employment. The first four don't and the hiring manager should not use stereotypes of them in hiring.

[Sculptor1]

No, blacks are more likely to be arrested for committing a crime. Very different.

Some would take this to mean that blacks are more likely to have committed a crime; others that it is because they are black that they are inherently criminal.
Others would say that in our prodominantly white society that the arrests are due to a deep assumption of this inherent failing, and that whites tend to see blacks in negative contexts all the time. They will go further to demonstrate that unconsious prejudice exists through scientific investigations.

It may well be that due to disadvantages in job application, and deprivation (which there is no doubt about) that indeed blacks turn to crime due to limited choices..

Whatever the truth of this, for each individual person it is only fair to try to put aside your biases, and recognise some inherent bias if you are ever called upon to judge a person.

I see that I was too brief in my comment and thus created confusion. Black neighborhoods are disproportionately policed, thus the police arrest blacks out of proportion with the number of crimes they commit. The police then turn around and say hey look at all of the criminals in these nlack neighborhoods, let's put even more police there AND let act more aggressively there. Fast forward to George Floyd.

As to judging individuals, ideally they should be judged as individuals, ie excluding any groups they belong to. For example we are all members of countless groups. A job candidate could be black, heterosexual, married, young, college educated, a convicted felon, has changed jobs frequently. All of those descriptions could be a group. Only the last three have anything to do with employment. The first four don't and the hiring manager should not use stereotypes of them in hiring.

I concur
Jacob Bronowski was once asked if you found incontrovertable evidence that black people had lower intellgence would your try to hide the data. He siad no, but that the "fact" was irrelevant since you could take any two groups and depending on the sample one would naturally have to be better at a test. The individual is under no obligation to adjust themselves to the norm.
In any event is is easy to devise a test or set of tests which would prove the opposite. I remember seeing an analysis of an IQ test would demonstrated clearly that a person born into a white or jewish family would, because of vocabulary, find it much easier to pass the test that anyone from what yo might call an "ethnic" neighbourhood. The analysis looked at such things as certain words more likely to be at the forefront of consciousness by whites such as "Jove" rather than "Jive" which might be more familiar to black people. Such subtleties of subjective selection were invisible to the creator Hans Eysenck, or he simply lacked the imagination to think more widely and deeply about what he was testing.
Yet such testing has, decades, been used to deny employment to those who underscore others.

[whateverist]

My understanding of sexism is that it is a form of prejudice, like racism and so forth.

Prejudice is inevitable. It is a form of short-cut thinking, making inferences that are not guaranteed to be correct, but that purport to have a better-than-50% success rate.

Examples would include thinking that women are less likely to be violent, more likely to be empathetic, less likely to be able to read a map, have less career ambition , etc.

It seems to me that you do wrong to an individual if you cling to negative prejudices about them in the face of contrary evidence. This is the ethical element.

Unfortunately, it is greatly exaggerated in some quarters.

This expresses well the way I see sexism as well. I agree that prejudice is fallout of short cut thinking. But I’d also consider an obsession with certainty as another driving force in why we are so often ready to over generalize from a limited set of experiences to assumptions toward all women, for example. We take short cuts because it allows us to exude a certainty which isn’t deserved, and we like feeling confident.

I’ve always found the question of essential differences which predominate between the sexes to be interesting and I think there are some but perhaps none that aren’t trivial which apply universally. But I’ve never felt any compulsion to behave in stereotypically male/masculine ways. Whatever tendencies which may apply would be descriptive, not prescriptive. That has been the difficulty for me with empathizing with trans perspectives. Rather than go to all the trouble of imagining ones say into the counterpart mindset sexually (ie, gender), why not simply disengage any ‘should’s’ from the perceived patterns?

[Good_Egg]

I’ve always found the question of essential differences which predominate between the sexes to be interesting and I think there are some but perhaps none that aren’t trivial which apply universally.

Seems to me that there are three types of differences between the sexes
- essential differences - possibly all centred around childbirth ?
- statistical differences - where for example there are overlapping distributions of a characteristic but a clear difference in average (e.g. height). This is where prejudice comes in
-cultural differences, where some cultures or subcultures assign particular roles or activities or behaviours to males or females.

Seems to me that some people identify the existence of cultural gender roles as oppression, and would count this as sexism. Either because they can't imagine role differentiation without implied superiority/inferiority. Or because they identify with individuals who feel a strong desire to play some role that their culture assigns to the other sex.

But it seems to me that some people like cultures with gender roles. And denying them their culture on the grounds that "it's sexist" is just as oppressive, just as coercive, just as much imposing one's own culture on another person, as the practice they criticise.

But I’ve never felt any compulsion to behave in stereotypically male/masculine ways. Whatever tendencies which may apply would be descriptive, not prescriptive.

I tend to favour tolerance, wearing one's culture lightly, adult individuals allowing each other to get away with deviation from cultural norms. ( Which depends on being able to distinguish such norms from moral imperatives.) And I think you're suggesting something similar ?

[whateverist]

That all seems about right to me, Good_Egg. The only thing I’d want to emphasize is that while it is fine for there to be different cultural norms, I’d want to insist that everyone needs access to employment for which they are qualified and to be compensated in an equitable way.

Another point I’d emphasize is that since pregnancy encumbers one sex a whole lot more than the other, the one encumbered must have the final say about if the this pregnancy should be carried to term. I recognize not everyone will agree with me on that but that’s my position.

[Good_Egg]

Another point I’d emphasize is that since pregnancy encumbers one sex a whole lot more than the other, the one encumbered must have the final say about if the this pregnancy should be carried to term. I recognize not everyone will agree with me on that but that’s my position.

That makes perfect sense to me. The typical argument for allowing abortion is an argument for a natural right of bodily autonomy. Which right naturally belongs to the owner of the body in question.

I'd qualify that only by a moral duty to keep promises. Rights can be voluntarily waived. If anyone has made a promise "what's mine is yours" then have they not waived their moral right to the last word over their body and possessions ?

The only thing I’d want to emphasize is that while it is fine for there to be different cultural norms, I’d want to insist that everyone needs access to employment for which they are qualified and to be compensated in an equitable way.

But I don't see the logic for this bit. Why would you think that employment rights somehow transcend culture ?

Does a person have a right against the universe at large to be given a job ? How could such rights possibly work ?

If Adam needs a job of work done in his home, why does he not have a right to offer or not offer such employment to whomsoever he chooses ? Which might be his nephew.. Employing family in preference to strangers is normal in many cultures.

If you don't allow an embryo's "need" to live to justify presence in a body against the wishes of the owner, why would you allow a person's "need" for paid work to justify their presence in a home against the wishes of the owner ? Is there not a clear parallel here ?

Or am I misunderstanding you ?

[whateverist]

The only thing I’d want to emphasize is that while it is fine for there to be different cultural norms, I’d want to insist that everyone needs access to employment for which they are qualified and to be compensated in an equitable way.

But I don't see the logic for this bit. Why would you think that employment rights somehow transcend culture ?

Does a person have a right against the universe at large to be given a job ? How could such rights possibly work ?

If Adam needs a job of work done in his home, why does he not have a right to offer or not offer such employment to whomsoever he chooses ? Which might be his nephew.. Employing family in preference to strangers is normal in many cultures.

If you don't allow an embryo's "need" to live to justify presence in a body against the wishes of the owner, why would you allow a person's "need" for paid work to justify their presence in a home against the wishes of the owner ? Is there not a clear parallel here ?

Or am I misunderstanding you ?

That everyone should have a right to employment for which they are qualified comes closer to expressing what I wish was a stronger cultural norm than it appears to be, in the US at least. When it comes to who I am comfortable to employ as my baby’s nanny, I’m obviously going to take every precaution and indulge any bias I may harbor to improve my kid’s chance of safe, nurturing child care. But that shouldn’t make us eager to promote indulging personal biases as universally as possible. One of my preferences is not to trip over sleeping homeless as I step outside my front door. So I have a rationale for seeing as many adult human beings financially solvent as possible. So where doing so does not pose a personal risk there is reason to wish that societal norms promote access to employment to everyone so that no one has reason for the kind of resentment that leads to antisocial behavior.

[Good_Egg]

When it comes to who I am comfortable to employ as my baby’s nanny, I’m obviously going to take every precaution and indulge any bias I may harbor to improve my kid’s chance of safe, nurturing child care. But that shouldn’t make us eager to promote indulging personal biases as universally as possible...

....where doing so does not pose a personal risk there is reason to wish that societal norms promote access to employment to everyone so that no one has reason for the kind of resentment that leads to antisocial behavior.

That's well put.

We can all desire an outcome in which everyone has employment suitable to their talents. (Which might best be achieved by making it easier to employ people, so as to expand the total number of jobs ?)

And we can all desire a world with less resentment. (Not stoking resentment by talking it up would be a good start).

No sensible person wants to encourage bias and prejudice. I would wish to see a "societal norm" which acknowledges that everyone has biases, and seeks to minimise them from enlightened self-interest.

It's not only our children that we desire to protect. There are start-up companies whose purpose is to implement someone's brainchild, their life's work. Various people are strongly motivated to get the best employees they can. And desire to use all the means and all the data at their disposal - the subconscious mind as well as the rational mind, partial statistical data about group averages as well as individual data, verifiable and unverifiable data - to give themselves the best chance of getting the best people and the minimum chance of getting someone unsuitable.

If you can show people that a particular bias is counter-productive, those who are serious about recruitment will choose to abandon it.

[popeye1945]

I was thinking about this recently and how much is about the limitations of ideas about gender and stereotypes and about the nature of the power structure. Sexism may affect men and women but, at the same time, in the context of history, women have been subordinate to men. So much has changed, especially in the twentieth century, especially with the rise of feminism, the deconstruction of gender in postmodernism and a general understanding of inequalities.

There is the question of the nature of biological differences, especially to what extent are men and women different. Also, there is the gender spectrum, especially in issues addressed by members of the LGBTIQ communities. There is a huge debate sparked by J K Rowling about the biological women and it can be asked whether her ideas have been blown beyond all proportions. Nevertheless, the issue of transgender raises questions about the limitations of gender and stereotypes.

So, the philosophy questions may involve thinking about the nature of gender itself as well as the nature of patriarchy. It is also about the nature of prejudice and discrimination, both towards women and men, as well as towards differently gendered and sexual minorities? How may power be understood and the abuse of power, Is there a parallel between prejudice and discrimination on the basis of gender and race? Also, while transgender issues may be seen as diminishing the concerns of female insubordination, to what extent do the identity issues arise in the context of sexist thinking and its inherent stereotypes of body and behavior come into play in human life?

I am not intending to create a thread about transgender issues specifically. If anything, I am left wondering how much of the heated debates around transgender are about sexism. How much is about gender subversion and its projection on the obvious deviants who transgress the binary distinctions and what does this say about the nature of gender dynamics and sexism?

Sexism is usually seen as dubious ethically, ranging from ideas about what a person, especially a female, .. can become. It can also involve ideas of how sexuality should be presented, such as how a woman may present in such a way as to encourage the intrusive behavior of rapists. So much is about stereotypical assumptions and it does come down to the question of sexism and its ethical assumptions. So, how do you see this area of prejudice and discrimination for men and women and those who may identify as somewhere in between? Does sexism exist and to what extent does it matter ethically?

Sexism is as old as humanity, and it is a dual function, sometimes called sexual tension between the male and the female, two aspects of one thing. The present difficulties are political, economic and fashionable, but unfortunately, biology does not follow fashion. The relation remains the same, no matter how turbulent the waters. My own opinion is it has gotten to the point of insanity, in the west at least, it does not bode well for the future of the culture.

[LuckyR]

Sexism is just tribalism along gender lines. Ho hum...

[Stoppelmann]

Sexism is as old as humanity, and it is a dual function, sometimes called sexual tension between the male and the female, two aspects of one thing. The present difficulties are political, economic and fashionable, but unfortunately, biology does not follow fashion. The relation remains the same, no matter how turbulent the waters. My own opinion is it has gotten to the point of insanity, in the west at least, it does not bode well for the future of the culture.

I suggest that anyone who fails to see how females have continually been disadvantaged by the dominance of men, beaten, incarcerated, raped and killed at the slightest mention of equality, should critically look at their own attitude towards women.