What is sexism, and is it good or bad?

[Smart_Guy]

I think that’s grossly simplistic (and arguably sexist). The idea that you can assign a simple value to mothers or fathers is flawed in itself. The relationship between parents and children is arguably the most complicated human relationship there is and the number of ways in which both parents can and will influence the child are almost infinite. Also, there will be massive variation between different families and different individuals.

Grossly as in disgustingly or over-all?

It is not a generalization over mothers, it is meant to support one of the usual cultural roles of mothers in my culture. It is meant to encourage mothers to care for their motherhood. Ultimately it does not really matter as long as we get a community with a strong bonds, as we actually do.

The thing is woman =/= mother (even potential mother). The idea of all women getting paid more because some women will have children is obviously flawed. The correct approach (and done in many countries) is to have systems and procedures to support working women and men who become parents. There is no reason to treat workers who aren’t having children differently on the basis of their gender.

As an intensive, I see it is far from a flow. My point was to support possible loving potential mothers instead of having the possibility of hurting them for good things they want to do. It is not a woman's fault that she can't attend because she's having a delivery. The community should support her, including employers, so she does not get hurt for something honorable she decided to do.

I’d suggest “differently” rather than “more”, just as the parents will love each other differently to how they love their children (we’d hope!). It’s also worth noting that nobody is average. Again, every relationship is different.

Yes, a valid argument.

 

[HonestJoe]

Grossly as in disgustingly or over-all?

Grossly as in very.

It is not a generalization over mothers, it is meant to support one of the usual cultural roles of mothers in my culture.

It’s the very definition of a generalisation. Some mothers are harmful to their children and some fathers will protect their children from bad mothers. In general terms, parenting is far too complicated to assign simplistic concepts like “mothers are three times more important”.

As an intensive, I see it is far from a flow. My point was to support possible loving potential mothers instead of having the possibility of hurting them for good things they want to do. It is not a woman's fault that she can't attend because she's having a delivery. The community should support her, including employers, so she does not get hurt for something honorable she decided to do.

I completely agree that women who are going to have a child should be supported by their employer, as should men who are going to have a child, people who are in the process of adopting or fostering children, people who are suffering a long-term illness or injury, people who are caring for elderly parents etc.

I disagree with the idea that all women should be paid more because some women will have children while working. Not only is it discriminatory against male workers, in practice it would lead to fewer women being employer (even if that were illegal, it would happen) and so do more harm than good.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Grossly as in very.

Sorry, I misjudged your intentions.

It’s the very definition of a generalisation. Some mothers are harmful to their children and some fathers will protect their children from bad mothers. In general terms, parenting is far too complicated to assign simplistic concepts like “mothers are three times more important”.

Then it's a good generalization. It is about well built motherhood, not all mothers. The saying does say "if built well" before the descriptive complement. As for the three times better; I'm not sure about other cultures and communities, but in mine, it is the norm. And even tho it could be interpreted negatively, we men here don't look at it negatively at all. To the contrary, we like it even if it seems against us.

In my culture and community, I have never ever heard of any parent being harmful to their children. Maybe some cases had some honest mistakes or a parent favoring a child over the other happen some times, but even for the latter I only heard of only one case and caused by the father not the mother.

I'm don't mean to degrade fathers with this of course.

I completely agree that women who are going to have a child should be supported by their employer, as should men who are going to have a child, people who are in the process of adopting or fostering children, people who are suffering a long-term illness or injury, people who are caring for elderly parents etc.

I disagree with the idea that all women should be paid more because some women will have children while working. Not only is it discriminatory against male workers, in practice it would lead to fewer women being employer (even if that were illegal, it would happen) and so do more harm than good.

Good argument.

Don't you think it is worth it to mistakenly give the extra pay to all just to make sure those who deserve it gets it for certain, vs. to never give anyone anything resulting in hurting those who really need it? Also, I think further measures can be taken to monitor those who deserve it and those who don't deserve it to pay them righteously. It could still lead to having some of those who don't deserve it payed, but at least those who deserve it have their rights get to them.

 

[Sunstone]

Sexism is like racism: Some people who practice it just don't see it or notice it either.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Sexism is like racism: Some people who practice it just don't see it or notice it either.

Do you think both are always negative?

 

[Sunstone]

Do you think both are always negative?

If there are exceptions to their general negativity, they are few and far between.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sexism can be benevolent or hostile, but the end result is the same - "separate/different but equal" social norms. These practices, when challenged, are defended with devastating and sometimes deadly consequences.

 

[Willamena]

Sexism is bias or discrimination based on gender. For instance, if employees all do the same job, but the men get paid more just because they are men, that's sexist. If people are walking down a street and the women get harassed just for being women, that's sexist.

Edit: Oh. Others explained it so much better.

 

[Jumi]

The problem with sexism is that it isn't reality, it's just what some people want their sex or the other sex to be. You can force many to conform, but you are also taking away their happiness if you do.

 

[Willamena]

What do you guys think of men not being able to get pregnant and breast feed? Women naturally have these two privileges to practice their parenthood with the extra pride men can't enjoy. Do you think this is considered sexism on nature's side?

That's not behavior, that's biology. Sexism is an attitude of behavior. Getting pregnant isn't a privilege. A privilege is bestowed, biology isn't.

You know, I think these factors should actually give women more salary as part of extra allowances. Kinda like the extra tickets and housing allowance percentage expats get in my country since they come a long way from home and must go visit from time to time, that I don't get (that I'm not nor should I complain about). I also think extra payed days-off should be provided to women for those when it is needed. I think the labor laws should enforce those on all sectors.

That would be sexist. The measure of a salary should be work or duty, not status or biology.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Longer or shorter urethra shouldn't determine who should use the toilet first. And we don't create cultural norms that pervade governmental, familial, and socio-economic class areas that privilege or deny access based on the length of a persons urethra.

This is why biological determinist arguments fail miserably in terms of discerning different biologies as justification for different rights.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sexism is what actual victims of it never talk about.

 

[leibowde84]

And should it be fought, maintained, moderated... etc?

Please give your definition of sexism so no confusions happen. Is it positive, negative or neutral? I want to know the actual practical meaning, not the textual Google meaning.

Is having typical (as in normal cases) specific gender cultural roles like men for heavily physical duties, and natural roles like men not being able to get pregnant, considered sexism?

I started this thread to know more about sexism and how people see it, but I placed it in a debates section for you guys to enjoy.

Cheers!

Disclaimer:
I always like posts in my thread. It does not necessarily mean I like the content of the post.

"Sexism" is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex." I think it should be fought, as we have learned that people must be looked at individually. Some women are stronger than some men. Some men make better parents than some women. Some men are even better "stay-at-home" parents than some women. Some women are better leaders than some men. We should do whatever we can to escape these archaic notions that all men and women have the same strengths and weaknesses dependent on their sex.

 

[9Westy9]

What is sexism, and is it good or bad?

And should it be fought, maintained, moderated... etc?

Please give your definition of sexism so no confusions happen. Is it positive, negative or neutral? I want to know the actual practical meaning, not the textual Google meaning.

Is having typical (as in normal cases) specific gender cultural roles like men for heavily physical duties, and natural roles like men not being able to get pregnant, considered sexism?

I started this thread to know more about sexism and how people see it, but I placed it in a debates section for you guys to enjoy.

Cheers!

Disclaimer:
I always like posts in my thread. It does not necessarily mean I like the content of the post.

Imo sexism is the belief that one gender is objectively better than the other. In practice this is less black and white. Is it sexist to have separate male and female sports teams/ competitions as men are generally better at certain sports?

I think that stopping women from doing heavy physical duties is wrong as some of them will be able to do these duties, even if not all of them can. Men not being able to get pregnant isn't sexist because we're talking about different biological functions.

 

[Smart_Guy]

That's not behavior, that's biology. Sexism is an attitude of behavior. Getting pregnant isn't a privilege. A privilege is bestowed, biology isn't.

Apologies, I meant that what that specific biology gives seem like a privilege; i.e. being able to hold the baby so close to always surround them by love as they grow. I could swear that some fathers I see, with the way they stick so close and care so much for the mother and the baby, want to be in the place of the mother to be the one holding the baby so dearly. I'm not married so I don't know how to describe it.

That would be sexist. The measure of a salary should be work or duty, not status or biology.

In your opinion, don't you think that with such biology forcing something upon someone putting them in a difficult position at some point make them deserving to be cut some slack?

I personally don't want my wife to be considered absent and have it a black dot in her carrier because she had to stay in a hospital for a couple of days for delivery. I think it is at least fair to give her an excused leave for those days providing she provides a medical report as a proof.

Is such sexism a good or a bad thing?

 

[Willamena]

In your opinion, don't you think that with such biology forcing something upon someone putting them in a difficult position at some point make them deserving to be cut some slack?

I personally don't want my wife to be considered absent and have it a black dot in her carrier because she had to stay in a hospital for a couple of days for delivery. I think it is at least fair to give her an excused leave for those days providing she provides a medical report as a proof.

Is such sexism a good or a bad thing?

Biology doesn't force anything upon us, it is just what is. It's people's attitudes that force things upon us--that's part of what feminism is about, raising awareness that some things are about attitude and not biology. Gender is a social, not a biological, phenomenon. In our cells, under the skin, men and women biologically are just human.

That social phenomenon, though, is stronger and more influential than any biology. It is more the identity that we carry, individually as part of a group (family, race, culture, and gender group). Our social groupings are more important to us than the incidental biology, which makes falling back on biology as explanation for "us" in most cases nothing more than an excuse.

Social-believing we can change. Biology we can't. That's why laws have leaned toward allowance for biological incident.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Biology doesn't force anything upon us, it is just what is. It's people's attitudes that force things upon us--that's part of what feminism is about, raising awareness that some things are about attitude and not biology. Gender is a social, not a biological, phenomenon. In our cells, under the skin, men and women biologically are just human.

That social phenomenon, though, is stronger and more influential than any biology. It is more the identity that we carry, individually as part of a group (family, race, culture, and gender group). Our social groupings are more important to us than the incidental biology, which makes falling back on biology as explanation for "us" in most cases nothing more than an excuse.

Social-believing we can change. Biology we can't. That's why laws have leaned toward allowance for biological incident.

Understood. Thank you for the reply

 

[HonestJoe]

Then it's a good generalization.

It isn’t a good thing if it’s turned in to assumption, which is an all too common issue. “This is usually true.” becomes “This is always true.” and sometimes “If you deny this truth you’ll be punished!”. In this example, it means that in cases of a mother abusing their children, those people who should be spotting and reporting the crime will refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes and abuse will be allowed to continue.

Anyway, your assumption isn’t even relevant in this context since we’re in agreement that all mothers should be supported in the context of employment. I’m just saying it not as much because of the (undeniable) importance of mothers but because of the importance of children.

In my culture and community, I have never ever heard of any parent being harmful to their children.

I don’t know how big your community is but there will always be a small proportion of parents (male and female) who will harm their children, be it due to mental illness, negligence or wilful criminality. Sometimes the impact in minimal but sometimes it’s extreme. Denying the possibility is indefensible and risks the same kind of failure I described above.

Don't you think it is worth it to mistakenly give the extra pay to all just to make sure those who deserve it gets it for certain, vs. to never give anyone anything resulting in hurting those who really need it?

No. In this case it’s no more difficult to give support to mothers/parents specifically – they’re easily identifiable after all. You’re also working on the assumption that there is some magical pot of money that this extra will come from. In truth, paying some people more inevitably means other people will be paid less. You also ignored the problem that, if employers were required to pay women more than men they’d just stop employing women (including mothers).

 

[Smart_Guy]

It isn’t a good thing if it’s turned in to assumption, which is an all too common issue. “This is usually true.” becomes “This is always true.” and sometimes “If you deny this truth you’ll be punished!”. In this example, it means that in cases of a mother abusing their children, those people who should be spotting and reporting the crime will refuse to believe the evidence of their own eyes and abuse will be allowed to continue.

Anyway, your assumption isn’t even relevant in this context since we’re in agreement that all mothers should be supported in the context of employment. I’m just saying it not as much because of the (undeniable) importance of mothers but because of the importance of children.

I don’t know how big your community is but there will always be a small proportion of parents (male and female) who will harm their children, be it due to mental illness, negligence or wilful criminality. Sometimes the impact in minimal but sometimes it’s extreme. Denying the possibility is indefensible and risks the same kind of failure I described above.

No. In this case it’s no more difficult to give support to mothers/parents specifically – they’re easily identifiable after all. You’re also working on the assumption that there is some magical pot of money that this extra will come from. In truth, paying some people more inevitably means other people will be paid less. You also ignored the problem that, if employers were required to pay women more than men they’d just stop employing women (including mothers).

Cool. Thank you for giving your opinion and views.