Sexism???

[Wesley]

Tossing around accusations of any -ism is huge, which is why I think you need an agreed upon definition of the term in order to debate the issue in any concrete manner.

Is sexism just an unpleasant feeling one gets that can be based on anything at all related to gender that just makes them feel uncomfortable?
Or is sexism an inherent intent or belief that one sex is superior/inferior and should or should not have certain rights, roles, responsibilities in political, economic, and social life?
Does sexism occur at the end point with its perception or at the source with its intent?

If you cannot agree on something as core as that, everything else is just begging the question and pointless to discuss.

For me it clearly resides in the latter, at the source, with intent.
Here's one example of why: A woman is walking down the street and a construction worker says "hey baby, nice legs." She labels it sexism because it made her feel uncomfortable. She gets home and her husband says "hey baby, nice legs." She labels it flattering because it made her feel nice. So, with identical actions, we find ourselves with two labels. Why? Were the intentions different in each case? How so? Let's say they weren't. Both men gave the compliment in the hopes of getting sex. Same action, same intent...is it fair to label one one sexism and one sweet? Why?
In this case, I'd call the first one rude, crass, base, socially inept, but not sexist.

That's why, for me, to have sexism you must have an inherent belief in the superiority of one sex over another and an intent to belittle, wound, maim, or minimize the "inferior" sex with the comment or action based on that underlying belief.

I don't want to discount anyone's feelings, especailly not those of discomfort, but the fact is that there are a lot of things and concepts in the world that make people feel discomfort, but that still may not be worthy of certain labels--especially when those labels do carry real-world consequences for those to whom they are applied.

If everyone has their own colloquial definition of the term, then one person calling another a sexist generates not a concrete charge, but a littany of diferent charges based on each person's personal definition.
Let's say Ferraro labeled me a sexist because I make a crack about her buying shoes. But all other people hear from her is "He's a sexist." Then they apply their own definition of the term, fair or not based on what caused her to level her accusation, to me.
It isn't "I hear sexist and that actually means..." it is "I hear sexist and I perceive and translate that to mean..." That's not only unfair, it's socially dangerous.

In the case of my earlier example of "Is it fair to ask this gender-related question," if the intent in asking it is not based on an inherent belief of sexual superiority or an intent to belittle or minimize, then I find it extremely unfair to label the question or the questioner as "sexist," when that term carries other charges in the minds of some who hear it. I find it even more distasteful when the term is used specifically to manipulate people's emotions and to provoke that reaction (i.e. a political campaign blowing a charge out of proportion so that it becomes about the label and not the original intent or action. "I find this situation harmful to my campaign, so I'll label the person who brought it up with something I know carries a stronger emotional charge in order to discredit and shut them up").

[York99]

For me it clearly resides in the latter, at the source, with intent.
Here's one example of why: A woman is walking down the street and a construction worker says "hey baby, nice legs." She labels it sexism because it made her feel uncomfortable. She gets home and her husband says "hey baby, nice legs." She labels it flattering because it made her feel nice. So, with identical actions, we find ourselves with two labels. Why? Were the intentions different in each case? How so? Let's say they weren't. Both men gave the compliment in the hopes of getting sex. Same action, same intent...is it fair to label one one sexism and one sweet? Why?
In this case, I'd call the first one rude, crass, base, socially inept, but not sexist.

I disagree that these are the same. The first case is intent on having sex with a stranger... basically calling her a slut. The second case is intent on having sex with someone that you have (hopefully) proven that you respect on many different levels and have cared for over time.

The first definition of sexism by The American Heritage Dictionary: Discrimination based on gender

Discrimination comes from the intent of the alleged sexist. It's not how the alleged victim feels.

You can feel like someone is being sexist, but you can't know unless you are certain that that was the intent.

[York99]

And why? Because I do feel that she was attacked more viciously, because she was a woman.

Perception is HUGE too! In the end it may matter more then intent.

Dude, I don't think we're going to change each other's mind about this. And this discussion needs beer and fries.

I think she was attacked more because of past perceptions that have nothing to do with her gender. People hate her for some reason. I think it's unfair and frankly lazy to say that it's because of sexism.

As far as perception, see my previous post. Sexism is in the intent, not the perception.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I love to debate issue like this because it broadens MY understanding of the issue. This is selfish. If my points change other peoples' minds then that's great for them, but my only benefit is the pleasant feeling that I had a good assessment of the situation. If other people change my mind or even give me more to think about, then I've grown as a person. THAT'S what I'm actually hoping for most of the time: enlightenment. That's why I started this thread in the first place. More times than not "winning" a debate makes you look more like a bitch or a dick or an asshole.

[Wesley]

I disagree that these are the same. The first case is intent on having sex with a stranger... basically calling her a slut. The second case is intent on having sex with someone that you have (hopefully) proven that you respect on many different levels and have cared for over time.

I don't think being a stranger factors into it at all unless "being a stranger" equates to "therefore has an inherent belief in the gender inferiority of the person the sentence is leveled at." How does wanting to have sex with a stranger equate to calling the stranger a slut? (And even if it is the same, is calling someone a slut based on an inherent belief in gender inferiority of the person?) And it is because he is a stranger that I would label the comment rude, base, crass, and inept. I think those words apply given our social mores. But I still don't think it is necessarily sexist, which is the point.

If you do, hopwever, feel it is sexist, then I'd say that you effectively argued against your own case because you've read into his intentions and motivations beyond what was given. You are now speculating his motivation in a way that allows you to apply a label based on your belief that asking strangers for sex is the equivalent of calling them a slut, not his beliefs or motivations.
(He is actually very respectful and admiring of the strangers he has sex with and is attracted to this woman not only for her body, but the fact she's wearing the T-shirt of his favorite band, and is a world-reknown exobiologist whose books he has read several times with great reverence. He recognized her from her picture on the book jacket. In fact, he hopes this turns into a long term relationship because he thinks that she is the bee's knees, he's just bad with opening lines.)

Replace"stranger" with ex-boyfriend, then. Not a stranger, still in love with her, doesn't believe she's a slut, worships the ground she walks on, wants to get back together with her, but somehow still makes her feel uncomfortable when he says the same thing with the same intention as a current boyfriend. Is it sexist? No, it's just creepy.
But if the intent of the ex was to win her back and regain control over her like she was his property, then it could well be called sexist.

[nadine]

People hate her for some reason. I think it's unfair and frankly lazy to say that it's because of sexism.

And I think it's lazy to not explore the reason why Hillary is so hated... not just "for some reason".

Many feminists believe (including me) that partly the reason why she is hated so much is because she's female. Come on, lots of politicians have unsavory past and yucky dealings and integrity issues. Hillary is not different.

That's why Obama is such a breathe of fresh air.

[York99]

If you do, hopwever, feel it is sexist,

I don't know if he's sexist or not. I'm just saying that those aren't necessarily comparable situations. There are more variables in the equation than implied. However, society has dictated time and again that this is a sexist situation, so there's an argument in there. I would say that this is disrespectful, no doubt. Sexist? I don't know. At that point, it doesn't really matter.

[York99]

And I think it's lazy to not explore the reason why Hillary is so hated... not just "for some reason".

Fair enough. But since this discussion is about sexism I didn't feel it was necessary to explore the other reasons at this point. There are plenty of reasons why she's hated: negative campaigning, slimy politics, guilty by association of her husband, etc. I'm just not convinced that gender has played a role to the point of sexism.

But if I said she's hated or discriminated against because there's a bias against Irish or whatever her background is, I have the responsibility to make that case with examples and a solid argument. Just to say "She's being discriminated against. She's Irish. Therefor, she's being discriminated against because she's Irish." is just as flawed an argument.

Causality.

[nadine]

Several of us have given you what we consider evidence, but you don't think it qualifies as evidence, just gender-specific insults. Therefore, in the judge and jury of your mind, she hasn't been discriminated against.

Here's another "evidence" for your jury, a male blogger who doesn't even support Hillary and is tired of the sexism. He listed some videos and commentaries and says:
"Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman. John Edwards has been 150 times as angry the whole campaign, and has built his entire campaign around it. Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up. Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her shit.

I don’t want Hillary as President, but it sure looks to me like she isn’t getting a fair shake and is being subjected to a double standard. It’s bullshit."
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9421

[nadine]

And here's an op-ed from Gloria Steinem. Very well-written.

"But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender cardâ€

[York99]

In the past few days I've heard some more things in the news and read some more things on this subject. Here are some conclusions I've made:

Whether or not there has been sexism in this primary ranges from debatable to existent but not nearly as overt as people like Geraldine Ferraro make it out to be.

Ferraro's outraged righteous indignation was not nearly matched by the level of sexism involved.

This outrage was akin to the little boy crying wolf and hurt her credibility in such matters in the future (and, sadly, by extension it hurt ALL women's credibility).

At a time when the country IS finally making a huge turn to taking women seriously in politics, etc., Gloria Steinem refuses to acknowledge the victory or at least the progress... again injuring her credibility and again, by extension, giving an impression that women are endless complainers rather than endless fighters.

I believe that in spite of these two (and many other) women (and men) who are well-intentioned but misguided in their efforts, the women's movement has won a major battle or many major battles, even if the war is not over. [I think a war analogy was the wrong course, but I wasn't coming up with a better one.] The country is stronger for it.

[LisaJackson]

Just because I was curious...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

[Jeff]

This outrage was akin to the little boy crying wolf and hurt her credibility in such matters in the future (and, sadly, by extension it hurt ALL women's credibility).

ha ha... careful with them sweeping generalizations there, tiger. there are untold millions of people whose lives this big american story will surely never touch. i follow what you mean, though. it's just that i imagined some isolated amazonian tribe woman saying, "it, uh... didn't hurt my credibility."

[York99]

This outrage was akin to the little boy crying wolf and hurt her credibility in such matters in the future (and, sadly, by extension it hurt ALL women's credibility).

ha ha... careful with them sweeping generalizations there, tiger. there are untold millions of people whose lives this big american story will surely never touch. i follow what you mean, though. it's just that i imagined some isolated amazonian tribe woman saying, "it, uh... didn't hurt my credibility."

That's exactly the problem. The few voices that are crying wolf ruin it for the majority of women (and men) who save an accusation like sexism for when it's actually merited.

[BriHo]

If you apply Ms. Ferraro's (JESUS CHRIST DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? MS?) misbehavior to the movement she's defending, and then spread it further to include all women, that might be a bit sexist.

Nothing, though, is as sexist as forcing Chelsea to strut out there to the stage months at a time telling the same, "Can she do my laundry" story, conviently timed right before specific elections, the ones where women voters would play a role in netting them delegates... which was pretty much every post Super Tuesday primary. If sexism on the trail was that prevelant, you'd think there'd be at least another example they could come up with. Who knows, maybe all the sexists were a-gathered in the caucus states?

Digression aside, the very real issues involving gender were not presented to the public. If they ever came up in the public debate, they were either reduced to the most simplistic form possible (by both male and female pundits), or manipulated by Sen. Clinton's campaign as a stopgap measure when she started bleeding electoral votes.

Man, the childish, sexist, man-who-shouldn't-be-posting part of me was screaming to joke on that last italicized part. I'll still hit submit, but I'm literally figurtively scared of the consequences.

[Jeff]

Just because I was curious...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier
Thanks for that, Lisa. I didn't know until I started looking through that page that there is a connection between the origin of the word "feminism" and the Reunion Arena in Dallas.

That connection is Charles Fourier. Before today, my only mental association with that name was my favorite scene in the Whit Stillman film, Metropolitan: a shallow, upper-class young man is at a woman's party and he's telling her in a very serious/pretentious tone about how his favorite philosophy is Fourierism. Later as he's leaving out the door, the woman waves from inside and she says in a blithe and friendly voice, "Good luck with your Fourierism!"