Topic: Sex Rights

[Guillermo]

(click to show/hide)

My wife and I do not have children, by active choice on both our parts.  Frequently, when we meet people for the first time, get-to-know-you conversation will turn to the "do you have kids?" question.  When my wife answers "no, we don't, unless you count the dogs" she'll often get "Oh, why not?" with that look and tone of voice that says "what's wrong with you?" or sometimes she'll even get an "I'm sorry" response when she tells them she doesn't have children.   This is 100% unintentional sexism in my book that derives from a cultural assumption/bias that all women naturally want to have children of their own.   It's not discriminatory sexism, but it is sexism in that it's founded on pre-judging my wife based on nothing more than the number of X chromosomes she has and I'm certain that it's not a conscious or intentional thing.

That's 100% intentional sexism, the fact that someone has that assumption is sexist, they expressed sexist views. It's obviously a conscious thing, those sentences didn't form in the subconscious, the decision to move those lips didn't either, and those beliefs aren't the domain of the subconscious either, these aren't simple associations, they're coherent consciously held beliefs i.e. "women want to have children or worse women are for having children".

Ah, I think I see.  You and I differ on the definition of "intentional".  I agree that it's a conscious act to speak and that people generally are not oblivious to what they are saying.  However, I think that they can certainly be oblivious to how their words are received/perceived.  The woman who has a bunch of children and asks my wife "why wouldn't you want to have a child?" is consciously forming an opinion based on her world view and expressing it, but she's no more being intentionally sexist than my wife is in asking "what the hell is with those people?" when we see the Duggars (and their two dozen kids) on TV.  The other woman's opinion and view just happens to be founded on generations of expectations about the roles of women in Western society while my wife's is based on a different set of standards/assumptions.  Both are biased in their own ways, but only one is (at least in my understanding of the term) sexist.

I guess, for me, a lot of it has to do with the line between "why wouldn't you want to have a child?" and "You don't need contraceptives because the only purpose of sex is to have children and you should have as many as you can".  It's the difference between the guy who leaves his plate on the table after dinner without even thinking about it because he's always been in a home where the woman (wife, mom, whoever) cleans up the table while everyone else goes into the living room and the guy who thinks that a woman doesn't need anything more than a 6th grade education because she's going to stay home with the kids and cook and clean.

This is interesting. When I ask someone if they have children, and they say they don't, I normally change the subject to something else. Here's why. There are only two reasons for that response. Either they don't want children or they can't have children. If it's the latter, it's probably a touchy subject, so best not bring it up. If it's the first response, well, nothing wrong with that. Either way, the conversation is over.
In your case, the other families seem to always think the latter, which I find odd. Have you tried saying, "We don't want any kids." The response might be "ow, why not?", Which is a different reaction, and not as bad as what you have described IMO.

[Plastique]

Thanks for the replies, everyone, interesting info.

The English language is remarkable for one particular facet: Nouns do not have a gender. Things are referred to as "it" instead of "he" or "she."

Food for thought.

I have no idea why you posted that.

Plastique, what country do you live in that there is no sexism?

Whoa, easy on the straw man action!

I said I don't see harsh manifestations of sexism towards either sex, not that sexism doesn't exist here. And I'm intimating that part of the problem with these sex rights issues is that, in my experience at least, many people say the same thing.

But the MRAs and MRM is not really about the issues, it seems to be about advocating violence against women, which hurts men actually seeking equality.

Which, by the way, is called feminism.

You seem to be happy to generalize that feminism has only one true form and that men's rights movements are pretty negative. Why are you so emphatic that MRAs are bad news, and aren't there other one-sided brands of feminism that would claim equal credence?

Which, by the way, is called feminism.

I can accept that there are brands of feminism that seek to stand up for both women and men, however, I'm ambivalent towards the appellation. Particularly for outsiders, I think the label might have so much baggage that it's unintentionally polarizing.

I bet feminists who fight for both sexes get bored of having to shoot down stereotypes when talking to the uninitiated.

[Tatyana]

Yes, we do get bored in shooting down the stereotypes of 'the feminist'.

My mum was very much influenced by the feminist movement of the seventies, and she had a  profound effect on myself and my sister,she raised us to be 'feminists'.
 

I suppose I grew up in seeing men and women as equals, even though she did talk about feminism and (at the time) gay rights.

While she didn't focus entirely on men's issues, she did bring them up on occasion, for example, how men had a much harder time being nurses (in the early eighties).

I must admit, that I have sometimes avoided using the term 'feminist' as there are so many negative connotations, however, there are still a lot of issues facing women in the western world, and especially in developing nations.

As I have also mentioned in other threads, there is a lot of gender inequality with men and the roles that they either HAVE to fill in society or those that people think it is odd that they fill.

I do see this changing, a lot of my colleagues and friends have often flipped or are flipping gender roles.

[Johnny Slick]

You can't be unintentionally racist or sexist.

Bull. Shit. You can sure as hell be from a culture which is inherently sexist, say/do/be things which are a staple of that culture without realizing what you're saying/doing/being, and still wind up being sexist as fuck. I mean, do you give Muslims a free pass on sexism because they insist they aren't sexist because they hold women up as paragons of virtue or what have you? Because regardless of whether they *think* their attitudes are sexist or no, if those attitudes involve poisoning schoolgirls for the anti-Muslim crime of learning, they *are*. Period. No controversy required.

In fact, pretty much nobody sets out to be sexist/racist/bigoted because that involves you being a bad person and few if anybody sets out to be a bad person. People *do* do and think a lot of things without consciously processing the consequences of those things. And I know that a great many people hate the idea that you have to invoke conscious thought to be polite about stuff. But, well... welcome to the 21st century. We don't require you to work 70 hours a week in slave labor anymore, and we don't figure you're probably going to die before you hit your 40th birthday. I think the least you can do in return is adopt a 21st century attitude of tolerance, which yes involves monitoring what you think and not trying to take the "well I'm not really being sexist because I didn't KNOW I was being sexist" way out.

If you're trying to say that most people aren't intentionally being sexist/racist/otherwise bigoted when they express bigoted thoughts and that just labelling them as sexist/racist/bigoted is often counterproductive as a persuasive tool, I agree. But let's call a spade a spade* here.

*OH NO YOU DON'T

[Ajzzz]

You can sure as hell be from a culture which is inherently sexist, say/do/be things which are a staple of that culture without realizing what you're saying/doing/being, and still wind up being sexist as fuck.

I don't believe that's the case, if people do or say sexist things, they're realizing that. Someone can be sexist without realizing it, but their ignorance of the concept of sexism doesn't mean what they do is without intent.

In fact, pretty much nobody sets out to be sexist/racist/bigoted because that involves you being a bad person and few if anybody sets out to be a bad person.

Sexist and racist views are wide spread and held without regret, they view it as the way things are meant to be or should be, and that can't be bad in their view, or they're the way things are, and telling truths is not wrong to most people. They're not bad people, they're ignorant, misguided, and sometimes stupid.

People *do* do and think a lot of things without consciously processing the consequences of those things.

That's irrelevant to sexism, unintentional consequences are not and cannot be sexist, it's the meaning that counts.

If you're trying to say that most people aren't intentionally being sexist/racist/otherwise bigoted when they express bigoted thoughts and that just labelling them as sexist/racist/bigoted is often counterproductive as a persuasive tool, I agree. But let's call a spade a spade* here.

If most people are expressing bigoted thoughts it's because they're intentionally being sexist/racist, in that they sincerely and consciously hold sexist/racist beliefs. People who unintentionally treat people differently are not being racist/sexist. People who express racist/sexist thoughts or have racist/sexist attitudes are being racist/sexist, that can't be unintentional.

[Johnny Slick]

Nope, sorry. The meaning doesn't count, at least not 100% in an either/or way. The effect plays into that as well.

[Jeremy's Sea]

Nope, sorry. The meaning doesn't count, at least not 100% in an either/or way. The effect plays into that as well.

I hate everyone who has the last name Slick (especially if it's not their IRL last name). It may sound bigoted to you, but if it makes you feel bad it wasn't meant that way, it's just how we say things about the dirty Slicks of the world. I didn't mean to pass you up for the promotion, it's just how we do things, we're not really Slickists. Adjust your attitude and feelings for my cultural norms.

[Neon Genesis]

That's 100% intentional sexism, the fact that someone has that assumption is sexist, they expressed sexist views. It's obviously a conscious thing, those sentences didn't form in the subconscious, the decision to move those lips didn't either, and those beliefs aren't the domain of the subconscious either, these aren't simple associations, they're coherent consciously held beliefs i.e. "women want to have children or worse women are for having children".

This is like saying a child who touches a stove without knowing that it would burn them must have intentionally wanted to get burned.   

[Johnny Slick]

Nope, sorry. The meaning doesn't count, at least not 100% in an either/or way. The effect plays into that as well.

I hate everyone who has the last name Slick (especially if it's not their IRL last name). It may sound bigoted to you, but if it makes you feel bad it wasn't meant that way, it's just how we say things about the dirty Slicks of the world. I didn't mean to pass you up for the promotion, it's just how we do things, we're not really Slickists. Adjust your attitude and feelings for my cultural norms.

This is the kind of racial oppression my people have to live with every single day. 

[Neon Genesis]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about whether or not sex rights are protected by the constitution.

[Ajzzz]

(click to show/hide)

Nope, sorry. The meaning doesn't count, at least not 100% in an either/or way. The effect plays into that as well.

I hate everyone who has the last name Slick (especially if it's not their IRL last name). It may sound bigoted to you, but if it makes you feel bad it wasn't meant that way, it's just how we say things about the dirty Slicks of the world. I didn't mean to pass you up for the promotion, it's just how we do things, we're not really Slickists. Adjust your attitude and feelings for my cultural norms.

Professing that something isn't bigoted or that something wasn't meant that way doesn't make it true. Also racism and sexism don't require someone to want to make others feel bad.

Nope, sorry. The meaning doesn't count, at least not 100% in an either/or way. The effect plays into that as well.

But that's not sexism/racism, that's people being mistaken either through their fault or the fault of the speaker, people do things with unexpected consequences all the time, it's nonsense to call them bigots for them, you're using wildly different definitions for these words.

(click to show/hide)

That's 100% intentional sexism, the fact that someone has that assumption is sexist, they expressed sexist views. It's obviously a conscious thing, those sentences didn't form in the subconscious, the decision to move those lips didn't either, and those beliefs aren't the domain of the subconscious either, these aren't simple associations, they're coherent consciously held beliefs i.e. "women want to have children or worse women are for having children".

This is like saying a child who touches a stove without knowing that it would burn them must have intentionally wanted to get burned.   

No, it's like saying a child that's ignorant of stoves can still get burned.

[lorryfach]

Is there an ultimate goal to arguing about what it means to be intentionally or unintentionally sexist, or are we just hashing it out because no one wants to let it go?

[SVoid]

But the MRAs and MRM is not really about the issues, it seems to be about advocating violence against women, which hurts men actually seeking equality.

Which, by the way, is called feminism.

You seem to be happy to generalize that feminism has only one true form and that men's rights movements are pretty negative. Why are you so emphatic that MRAs are bad news, and aren't there other one-sided brands of feminism that would claim equal credence?

Largely, out of my ignorance. Just as people who say "I haven't seen women stand up against male circumcision" are wrong to say so, I say I haven't seen MRAs go for a very long time without being hostile to women in general. In other words, it's called an availability heuristic. All the feminists I now or listen to are great people who care about men as much as women. Meanwhile those who rail against feminism are using dated 80s stereotypes.

(Just like there are radical atheists there are radical feminists, usually in university where everyone is radical. People usually grow out of that.)

Meanwhile the MRA is a recent movement. While I've heard of men that have to fight against the system, the MRA websites for forums I am aware of are filled with hostility toward women. They seem to represent the same radical university student mindset, don't criticize those in their own movement who encourage violence against women (and I don't mean just hitting back).

Though I admit that there may be forums, blogs and groups that support the equality of men and women from a men's perspective but I don't see it. The MRA websites I am aware of (and this may be my ignorance speaking) actually voice concern that women are given the same opportunities as men at times, and tend to be filled with conspiracy theories.

I.e., watching people up vote comments on reddit's MRA topics that include violence against women, and the same for other websites quoted on this web forum in this or the MRA thread that's going on at the same time.

Actually, I've very interested in the topic of men's rights and would appreciate anyone recommending a place I can go to hear about more of the ways that sexism effect men negatively. Back in the 1950s sexism effected men far more than they do now.

Consider what I wrote here: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,41326.msg9207452.html#msg9207452

[Guillermo]

Now, where do you draw the line. What is the least sexist thing someone can do and still be sexist?

I really want to know. Opening the doors, paying for dinner, making the decisions of were to have dinner. I can go even further, making the decisions of the house, kids and family. What if the wife, encourages it?

[SVoid]

Now, where do you draw the line. What is the least sexist thing someone can do and still be sexist?

I really want to know. Opening the doors, paying for dinner, making the decisions of were to have dinner. I can go even further, making the decisions of the house, kids and family. What if the wife, encourages it?

I would not think it works like that. For example, consider my relationship with my girlfriend. I suspect that I will be in charge of technology issues and she will be in charge of child issues. (By which I mean, the person who has a little more responsiblity then the other, and which the other will probably defer to.) Is that sexist? Or is it because I am a computer programmer and someone who has spent his entire life wiring entertainment centres and building computer while she is a teacher and deals with children and children issues outside of the home professionally?

Sexist is when you assume something. I.e., that the man shouldn't make decisions about raising children because he's a man. Meanwhile many men are objectively better parents then the mother's of their children because they are more attentive to them and their needs.

If you have an equal relationship and decide on something then it is not sexist. If you assume that your girlfriend will do your laundry because she's a girl like your mom and your mom does your laundry now then that is sexist. However, if you ask her to do all your laundry and she accepts because she hates doing dishes and you do that, then there is nothing sexist about it.

Or even: If you decide to radically change your life to take a great opportunity to advance your career and make a lot of money, but as a result need your your spouse (male of female) to give up their job and take on all house and child care responsibilities, it's fine. Even if it's the woman who takes it on. As long as you come to it as two people in a relationship, rather than assumptions about who takes on what role. (I.e., the man is the bread winner, the mom should be the stay at home parent if and when the opportunity presents itself.)

As a man, I resent the stereotype that I should do all the heavy lifting and yard work. I detest those things. Being out doors. Breaking a sweat. Manual labour. There's a reason I gravitated toward computers. My significant other, on the other hand, enjoys the outdoors. In fact, I suspect she will do lawn maintenance, and she has hinted as much. We are moving in together in just over a month. We should clarify this. She hates dishes and I have no problem with them. I just put on a podcast or audiobook and go to town on them.