Fuck Sexism

[FaustWolf]

Yeah, Zai's definition of "relationship" was something I was thinking of asking, but you've done it for me Truth. Fair enough, fair enough.

Still, I wonder just how distinct "adult" relationships are from the "high school crush & bust"? What criteria should we use? I admit to have ceased dating after high school; one of the things I learned from the crush & bust cycle is that it's important to give yourself a chance to settle into some routine in which you have financial stability and enough time to devote to your partner, and furthermore, that it's way easier for you to be single at the same time someone really compatible is single, when you're, well, single. It's just laughable (and extremely sexist) when a non-single college guy literally hooks up with another woman on the fly and the first girlfriend hasn't a clue that it's happening. I expect women do this too, of course. In a really sick way, I guess I'm hoping that they do so at least both sexes are screwing each other over equally.

But what I'm getting at here is that, perhaps, we should look at the goal of the relationship and emotional maturity of the partners, rather than the age level of the partners alone, when deciding what a relationship is. I was none too impressed with the dating lives of many of my college friends and co-workers because it reminded me so much of what high schoolers went through in my day. It was just nuts. On the other hand, I met a couple in high school who had, just, this utterly perfect emotionally mature relationship.

If Zai is referring to mature relationships with long-run stability as the end goal, I'll give her that it's probably far less frequent than wider definitions of "relationship." Even so, if you look at the people on this board, there are a few who are happily married or otherwise happily engaged in stable relationships.

[Zephira]

Zaichik, all those characteristics you listed for men - being kind, courteous, brave, generous, and respectful - are indeed great qualities to have, but benevolent sexism implies that these qualities are only shown towards one gender. Maybe it's just my preference, but the ideal man would show those qualities to all people. There are ways to make a lady feel 'special' (assuming she's earned it) without having to be an ass to everyone else.
Benevolent sexism is thus: Assuming that women are too weak to perform any manual labor, pay any bill, make work or social relationships, or run a household, thus the men must to it for them. OR, a man just wants to get in a certain woman's pants, so he gives her preferential treatment. He leads her to believe that he is a kind and generous guy by treating her, holding doors, helping move things, when in reality he wouldn't lend a hand to anyone else in need.
You say that men are favoured in society. They are in certain aspects, but this so-called benevolent sexism makes life crappy for a whole lot of men.

[Lord J Esq]

I know a lot of you will jump my gun on this, but men don't need to feel special because society already privileges them anyway. Also, a womans inherent nature will make men feel very special. I just know this from mine/my girlfriends experiences. A woman will usually try to make her boyfriend feel special by her inherent nurturing nature.

What you're describing is gender norms, not the nature of sex. A considerate and affectionate partner will nurture their mate regardless of whose sex is what.

Isn't it saying something that a lot of women think chivalry is dead? it's not dead, it's just much more reserved these days. This is NOT a stepping stone against sexism. It is a stepping stone for selfishness and uncaring. Many men are not chivalrous because they know that modern society doesn't expect it, so why should they be trying to impress their lady if she isn't expecting it either?

No one is saying that the succor and courtesy to which you are referring when you speak of "chivalry" ought to be forgotten from relationships. To the contrary, I think such decency ought to exist in all our relationships, romantic or not, amicable or not. My complaint is that you're making some very sweeping generalizations about the sexes, because, first of all, I think they're untrue, and, second of all, sex-specific generalizations lead invariably to the reinforcement of gender roles, which have been used to hurt so many people.

This is one of those times when it doesn't really matter what the majority of females are like, or what the majority of males are like. So long as there are single individuals who are held back by the presence of gender roles in our society--and there always are such people, including a far greater number who are never even aware of their circumstances, who live out their lives never knowing that sexism curtailed many of the opportunities and possibilities they might otherwise have had--so long as our society and perhaps our very species remains sexist, it is always harmful to make sex-specific generalizations that are not firmly grounded in physiology. You may say that it is inherent to a female's nature that she be nurturing, and it is a debate for another day as to whether you are right are wrong, but the existence of nurturing impulses and attitudes in males raises the likelihood that males may also be nurturing creatures, in which case: Your attitude on chivalry is needlessly constraining. It may work for you, and neither I nor anybody sensible would tell you that you can't have exactly the kind of romantic relationship you want to have, but other people are not bound by your sense of perspective. They are as free as you are to choose how they live and what they value, or they ought to be free at least, and I know you're not trying to tell anyone else what to do, but, by insisting upon these generalizations of the sexes, you are effectively doing exactly that. These sorts of beliefs always have social consequences. It is the sum of our individual convictions which shapes the outlook of a society.

Anyway, most women like their men to be brave, generous, and COURTEOUS. How are these negative qualities to have? These are the ideal qualities for a man to have. I am somewhat chivalrous, because i am independant and masculine. I expect my boyfriend to be too, and while I am much braver than my current boyfriend, bravery can be developed... generosity and being courteous are more ingrained... My boyfriend is much more generous than I am. Because my selfishness is engrained. His actions encourage me to be less selfish. This is the ideal kind of relationship to have... when someone's good qualities encourage the other to make themselves better.

That's all very well said: The only problem is that none of it is sex-specific. Somewhere out there is a relationship where the female has your boyfriend's qualities and the male has your qualities. Is that relationship "wrong," or against human nature somehow? Or could it be that these characteristics originate not from sex and sex alone, but from some other, more comprehensive set of sources?

[Truthordeal]

One point I do want to make a bit clearer, or ask about anyway, is that its ok if you were to maybe treat someone you were in a relationship with, crush and bust or no, a bit differently and perhaps a bit more politely than you would other people.

For instance, I'd probably treat my gf a bit more...for lack of a better word, delicately, than I would my guy friends. That's more of a dating ritual than an example of benevolent sexism, right?

[Lord J Esq]

Yeah, that's true of any new human relationship you're forging...there's almost always some kind of delicate period during which acquaintanceship is made and the underlying rapport is established. If you noticing it more prominently in your romantic relationships, it means that you value something in that relationship more than you do in your typical relationships. I would guess that you simply want sex, but you might also have a profound desire for any of several other things (or any combination thereof).

I wouldn't worry about it...

[Truthordeal]

I merely wanted to clarify the distinction between how one acts in a romantic relationship(which will rely on my chivalry than normal) and the other platonic relationships.

[ZaichikArky]

Yes, by "relationship", I meant stable, long-term relationship. One that at least lasts for several months, if not quite longer... I'm sure there are some members on this forum who have been in a relationship like that, but I notice that some people on forums tend to go after online relationships where they either meet the partner once, or not at all. Because of my experiences, I would not degrade that to be a not-relationship, but it's just not really the same as a stable relationship "normal" relationship. Actually, I have never been in a stable "normal" relationship either. So I don't know a lot of things either... I've been with the same guy for over 5 years, though... and I guess that does count for something.

This is one of those times when it doesn't really matter what the majority of females are like, or what the majority of males are like. So long as there are single individuals who are held back by the presence of gender roles in our society--and there always are such people, including a far greater number who are never even aware of their circumstances, who live out their lives never knowing that sexism curtailed many of the opportunities and possibilities they might otherwise have had--so long as our society and perhaps our very species remains sexist, it is always harmful to make sex-specific generalizations that are not firmly grounded in physiology. You may say that it is inherent to a female's nature that she be nurturing, and it is a debate for another day as to whether you are right are wrong, but the existence of nurturing impulses and attitudes in males raises the likelihood that males may also be nurturing creatures, in which case: Your attitude on chivalry is needlessly constraining. It may work for you, and neither I nor anybody sensible would tell you that you can't have exactly the kind of romantic relationship you want to have, but other people are not bound by your sense of perspective. They are as free as you are to choose how they live and what they value, or they ought to be free at least, and I know you're not trying to tell anyone else what to do, but, by insisting upon these generalizations of the sexes, you are effectively doing exactly that. These sorts of beliefs always have social consequences. It is the sum of our individual convictions which shapes the outlook of a society.

I won't really argue with that. Though that paragraph was kind of hard to follow.

I think it is important to take society as a whole and this is where I will argue. This is why sociology is important. It is very important to understand societal expectations and why people act the way they do. In Western Society, people are basically free to be as individualistic as they like. We are very lucky in that respect. Even though we may feel free to act as individualistic as we like, society as a whole tries to conform our convictions to fit some kind of "norm". Sexually speaking, it's why homosexuality was condemned until the social movements of the 1960s, and still we are fighting battles every day against homophobia.

It's important to make generalizations so we can understand how society works. I never said that men were not nurturing, actually I would argue the opposite. There are a lot of men I know who are nurturing. However, it has been my experience that MOST women, in a relationship, become inherently nurturing anyway. If they're not, it's usually because they have some kind of emotional problems. If we understand why society operates certain ways, we understand how to oppose societal norms that we don't agree with. Just because I generalize, doesn't always necessarily mean that I am convinced things should be the way they are. I do not support gender equality because I don't agree with the concept, not because I feel like women should be happy with discrimination in their lives. I generalize because I feel like I have an understanding of how western society works as a whole(in a few areas anyway). The more people who try to understand, should try to change it, and we can... very slowly. We have made very large strides to try to make the world a less homophobic place because select individuals began speaking out and it spread throughout the nation. Before the 1960s, I would have generalized that homosexuals are a sin against god (or something to that nature), but these days most people accept homosexuals not as deviant, but as normal people who have one general difference in their lives.

Benevolent sexism is thus: Assuming that women are too weak to perform any manual labor, pay any bill, make work or social relationships, or run a household, thus the men must to it for them. OR, a man just wants to get in a certain woman's pants, so he gives her preferential treatment. He leads her to believe that he is a kind and generous guy by treating her, holding doors, helping move things, when in reality he wouldn't lend a hand to anyone else in need.
You say that men are favoured in society. They are in certain aspects, but this so-called benevolent sexism makes life crappy for a whole lot of men.

This is kind of a skewed definition of "benevolent sexism". It is not all there is toward it. Here is the definition that I found, which was much more positive:

Benevolent sexism is a part of a model of sexism developed by Peter Glick and Susan Fiske in 1996. Benevolent sexism, as opposed to hostile sexism, often seems to be a favorable view towards females, despite being grounded in gender stereotypes. For example, the beliefs that women are more nurturing, the men should always pay for a date, and that women should be rescued first from a sinking ship are all indicative of benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism has three sources: protective paternalism (wanting to protect women), complementary gender differentiation (viewing women as different and better), and heterosexual intimacy (worshiping women).

Nothing wrong with WORSHIPING WOMEN :3. Anyway, while benevolent sexism has gender stereotypes, to me, it is not inherently bad or even annoying. Then again, I have never really cared much about gender stereotypes >_>. I'm not really a stereotypical female and no one in my life I have ever met other than my father has ever told me that I should act more feminine (even if they believed it in their heads). Maybe it bothers other women, but no one I've ever talked to expects men to act a certain way, or expects women to act a certain way. What I say online is how I feel about things. I don't really go talking about stereotypes to men or women for that matter because it just seems really irrelevant in life to even do so.

[Zephira]

Of course benevolent sexism doesn't bother you, you're a woman. Benevolent sexism is all about putting women before men.
Let's take this sinking ship scenario you mentioned, and say you were a man. Your whole family - parents, fiance, siblings, children, what have you - already got on the life boat and there's only one seat left. Next to you on that sinking ship is a dainty, injured, single woman. Benevolent sexism says that woman should get the last spot on the lifeboat, not the father/soon-to-be husband, because it's the "right thing to do".
But of course, that example is a bit extreme. That same thing - minus the life and death bit - happens all the time at restaurants, in theaters, on busses, and just about anywhere.

[IAmSerge]

ITT:  Inferiority sexism bad, benevolent sexism good.

=D Sorry, I had to.

But seriously, that IS a (very uber basic) summary, right?

[Truthordeal]

More like, benevolent sexism=kinda bad. Inferiority sexism=much worse.

[ZaichikArky]

^ probably more true. Though I think benevolent sexism is more subjective. While I know I'm in the minority, it's not that I don't mind it so much because it favors women, I just don't really think there is anything inherently wrong with it. I think everyone agrees that inferiority sexism is very bad... And as for the practicality, like I said, I really can't remember a time when I was treated favorably just because I was a woman. Not on a bus, not on a plane, not on a boat? I already mentioned this, but I'm treated differently by men if they want to have sex with me and that isn't the same at all. It may be because I'm not pretty enough or dainty enough, but even so, I'm not really even sure if any of my friends have experienced benevolent sexism.

Actually, there is a case that is coming to mind.  I'm big and strong, so I was at the beach with some friends and I wanted to help carry the cooler back. So I told the guy I wanted to help but he said firmly "No, let the guys do it." XD; So it was slightly annoying because in this case, he WAS practicing benevolent sexism. It's funny because a little earlier, us girls decided to take a walk and one of my friends' boyfriend decided to come along. He was teased a little by the guys saying that the walk was for the girls. It was teasing, but it kind of implied that this was "female" territory and he should have stayed with the guys while the girls went and did their girl things.

Like, stuff like that happens all the time and I just really don't mind it, you know? Am I WRONG for not minding? Like, some guys would allow me to help them carry the cooler, but a lot of guys would not allow this. Not only would they think that it isn't a woman's place to help carry the cooler, but he would think that it would be too difficult for her to help(even if she volunteered) so he would be doing her a favor by denying her. Not only that, but some guys would tease the guy if he DID agree, saying that he has girls doing work for him because he wouldn't be able to do it himself. So since guys are worried about being teased about their masculinity, they would refuse girl help...

Thinking about it, it is a little wrong, but I guess I resigned myself to accept that sometimes in life men and women have their own little worlds which can't always be penetrated. I penetrate into the "male world" enough as it is. I am pretty masculine and I am by far the most masculine of all my girlfriends. I know that no matter how hard I try, I can't be one of the guys for many reason. So I generally like being around women better because I feel more comfortable with them. I honestly don't mean this in a bragging way( trust me, I am not that attractive), but so many times in my life I have wanted to stay in the "friends zone" when guys have none of that and want something from me which I am unwilling to offer. Girls never treat me this way, so I do prefer being among females for the most part.

I guess I'm going a little off topic, but I suppose that my point is that though I have experienced some sexism and benevolent sexism, I have never experienced inferiority sexism and I never blatantly will. I am 90% certain that in the course of my life, if someone thinks I'm inferior because I'm a female, I will never hear about it, and that's ok with me.  I don't really like this quality about myself, but I am one of the most judgmental people I know. I am judgmental about everything and everyone...  I judge people all the time based on so many factors about why they are inferior, either to me, or to others, and hell, if people want to judge me to, that is just fine. They can judge me all they want and I just don't care...

There are a lot of things I am indifferent about when it comes to "sexism". Explaining everything about it is very difficult, especially when it comes to the theories and reality. In my reality, I live a happy life where I don't care about sexist behavior towards me. In theory, I would like certain things to not happen(mostly men propositioning me), but they're not going to happen, and that is fine. That is not my battle. It isn't much of a man's battle either, but hell, if white people stand up against racism, then men have a right to stand up against sexism. I just really feel like it's preaching to dead wood...

Some black people feel like whites could never understand how things are because they don't know racism, and while I feel somewhat similar about sexism, at the same time why does it matter if I don't care about people being sexist *to me*. I think it's very unfortunate that some women have worse sexist experiences than me. Someone needs to stand up and speak on behalf of these women, and they should speak OUT. If they keep on bearing their hardships, no one will ever rethink sexism, especially people guilty of being sexist. It doesn't always mean tirades on "The Angry Beaver", it just means getting the word out as much as possible. But it's hard for me because sexism is not something that I feel any passion towards.

As an analogy, so many black people in the US don't care about racism. They live in a place where they are (to their knowledge) not treated differently because of their skin color so why care about other blacks in the US who are? Many minorities do not want to be treated differently even when it benefits them. I know of minorities who oppose affirmative action because they want to be hired and accepted by universities who don't grant them any favors just because they happen to be minorities. I guess it is kind of ironic because wasn't I just saying that I don't mind benevolent sexism? I do find affirmative action and benevolent sexism very, very similar in theory. Both are harmful, but both can be very positive as well...

[Truthordeal]

I do find affirmative action and benevolent sexism very, very similar in theory. Both are harmful, but both can be very positive as well...

Nice point.

To sort of expand on this comparison to race relations, I'd feel sort of the same way. Being white, I'm on the opposite end of affirmative action, but if me and a black person of equal caliber were competing for a job, or a scholarship, and they chose the other student simply because of his race, I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. There have been times when affirmative action goes too far, but I don't this is one of those cases.

All the same though, while Zaichi's comparison was apt, there's not much else the two practices have in common.

[ZeaLitY]

However, it has been my experience that MOST women, in a relationship, become inherently nurturing anyway.

It's important not to gather conclusions from phenomena that may be influenced by sexism. When most women have to expect to be homemakers just to have a chance at procreation or achieving love, being nurturing becomes more of a job requirement than a natural tendency or aspiration (and this choice doesn't have to be consciously made). It could be like saying, "most Iranian humans naturally want to cover females in clothing," which is nothing related to humanity and psychology, but rather religious conditioning and tradition. We shouldn't be imposing expectations.

Anyway, most women like their men to be brave, generous, and COURTEOUS.

I want these traits in my partner too, except towards all humanity, not just one sex. And above all else, to me, the most attractive things I look for in a partner are ambition, strong will, and intelligence, all of which defy the classic idea idea of some gentle, nurturing nest-keeper. I would submit that there would be more of me and more women like that without sexist attitudes and reinforcement. No sex has claim on individual qualities. No man or woman, but human.

protective paternalism (wanting to protect women)

"You're weak. You need protection."



"What"

complementary gender differentiation (viewing women as different and better)

"What"

and heterosexual intimacy (worshiping women).

This belongs in a definition of love as mutual "worshiping", not as a definition of benevolent sexism. In an ideal relationship, both "worship" one another. The authors of this sexist definition are shanghaiing romantic love for their own ends.

Benevolent sexism hinges on a foundation of inferiority sexism.

Am I WRONG for not minding?

I would have been pissed off, yeah. The other night at my summer class, after a test, I talked exclusively with a large group of women. If that's going to earn me some kind of ribbing from men, they can go fuck themselves. The same goes for men who would try to impose some kind of order on who can help move things. It boils down to "you have tits, so LOL thousands of years of sexism and discrimination dictate that I, the man born with muscles and a dick, should be doing the lifting." This is the 21st century. Fuck that thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if the men in your group are also massive homophobes.

I have never experienced inferiority sexism

Of course you have: sexism influences everything in this world, and you live in this world. Even if it comes down to, "I'd be living in a happier, easier world if there were no sexism," that's still being affected by it by being denied the potential of the best possible world. There's more to this, but this also needs to be said -- admitting this kneecaps your entire argument of "benevolent sexism is okay because it compensates for inferiority sexism." Well, if you're not treated as an inferior, how can you claim this ethical right to being treated benevolently?

There will *never* ever be such a thing as gender equality.

Hah.

ROW ROW, FIGHT THE POWER

I will never fucking give up fighting for it, because I know it's possible. Humanity has a shining, glorious future among the stars, and equality of life is one condition of its ascension.









 

[FaustWolf]

^Hell yeah!

I notice that some people on forums tend to go after online relationships where they either meet the partner once, or not at all.

Now, see, this is where I'm losing touch with younger generations. Does this actually happen as a relationship model, often? I mean, people trying to forge emotional connections and intimacy without actually meeting one another in physical proximity (video and webcams would allow "face to face" interaction)? That's really fascinating. I'm not sure it has any bearing on sexist attitudes and therefore it may not have much to do with this thread, but I'm really intrigued by things like this, which show how technology is gradually redefining human behavior. Mostly as a curiosity, but if it's pursued more and more often I may be underestimating the potential of this new use of the Internet. This would differ, of course, from Internet-enhanced dating where the post-date phone call is replaced by IM'ing or something if it turns out to be more convenient.

[Truthordeal]

Online relationships are becoming more prevalent, yes. Hopefully, the lack of direct contact while getting acquainted will eliminate some of the shallow ends of normal dating, if nothing else.

My mother met her current boyfriend over the Internet. She had enough confidence to move to Oklahoma, and the two of them have been living happily ever since.

As for myself, I met a very good friend of mine through Youtube. Since she lives in the Czech Republic, nothing of the sort would have happened had it not been for the Internet.

To these ends, the Internet will be a powerful tool in eliminating sexism.

But do remember that there are pitfalls, such as the unlucky fellow who dated his mother online before meeting her in person. Needless to say, without personal contact of some form, online relationships are based around practically nothing.