Fuck Sexism

[Lord J Esq]

For completeness, I'm linking here to something I posted about in the News thread.

http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php/topic,3283.msg205058.html#msg205058

[Thought]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/11/kenya.children.beading/index.html?hpt=Mid

Philip Lemantile, the father of 14-year-old Nasuto, says beading is aimed at stopping promiscuity among young girls.

The depths of the twisted thinking behind this is depressing.

[chi_z]

that goes a little beyond mere sexism, that's crimes against humanity imo. what gets me is the parents apparently allow this.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Last night, I was watching My Wife is a Gangster 2. It's a generally silly Korean action movie, but there's a delightful scene where a vendor is being rude to a woman, and insisting on his right to do so as a man. The protagonist (the gangster who became a wife) stops him. "Is your mother a man or a woman?" She proceeds with that line of questioning (and violence) through his immediate family before reminding him explicitly to treat women with respect.

Good stuff.

[FaustWolf]

Wow, check out this pre-school in Sweden. Far out stuff!

I do have to express some worry about a curriculum that focuses on a goal without equally recognizing the struggle to reach that goal. I mean, having the kiddies sit down to listen to "Snow White" in a society where the gender roles are pretty compatible with what's in the story is a fundamentally different experience for said kiddies compared to the story about the gay giraffes. There's a sort of cultural dissonance in the latter case compared to the "Snow White" example. Then again, it's only preschool; maybe you have to start somewhere.

Environmentalism was the big thing when I was that age -- one of my first memories was a discussion of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in kindergarten (Nickelodeon may have facilitated, but not sure now). Even at that tender age we received a clear and dire message, no punches pulled: lots of older people didn't give a rat's arse about the environment, and some really funky stuff was gonna happen to this world unless we kids took up the fight to save it. I sooo wanted to start recycling. And kicking ass! If we had just been shown how an environmentally conscious society operates in a vacuum, I'm not sure I would have felt the same impulse.

[tushantin]

Hah, tribalism and general discrimination is hard-wired into our brains, but it actually helped us survive in a long term. A saying goes that when we don't understand something we tend to fear it, and when you cannot comprehend the pain of someone else you tend to hurt them more. I cannot speak for the females, but the difference between genders is usually leaves young boys pondering, unable to understand girls and why they like what they like. Then these like-minded boys make a group and begin ensuring their dominance, and usually convincing others (and themselves) that the opposite party is a piece of shit. Thus, the clash.

But of course, once puberty hits, tables turn: Guys begin treating girls like princesses.  

Sexism is almost the same as other forms of tribalism, such as politics and fanboy-ism. Everyone likes to think of themselves as heroes, though deluding themselves as infallible (read: that bastard Osama bin Laden), but their idea of for the greater good becomes quite a problem when they begin succumbing to sheer hatred. Hatred that's brought by anger. Anger that's brought by lack of understanding. Education, wisdom and empathy has helped us effectively fight mindless discrimination before, and it will do so again.

Environmentalism was the big thing when I was that age -- one of my first memories was a discussion of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in kindergarten (Nickelodeon may have facilitated, but not sure now). Even at that tender age we received a clear and dire message, no punches pulled: lots of older people didn't give a rat's arse about the environment, and some really funky stuff was gonna happen to this world unless we kids took up the fight to save it. I sooo wanted to start recycling. And kicking ass! If we had just been shown how an environmentally conscious society operates in a vacuum, I'm not sure I would have felt the same impulse.

You bring up a good point there! You know, the thing every kid wonders at one point in their lives is that grow ups are stupid. It is that when things grow horribly wrong the grown ups do completely the opposite of what they're expected to do, or often a kid is educated into thinking that hurting someone is wrong and childish and yet the parent decides to get into fist fights from time to time. Kids find the adults to be dumb and confusing hypocrites, and in a way they are right to perceive it.

Kids are curious by nature and willing to believe anything, and building on their curiosity will help them grow into genii. They take interest in anything and everything, often seeing the world as some kind of a magical place. As it stands, perceiving our world as magical is the right thing to do, but as we grow older our thinking begins to stagnate, or the idea that believing in magic makes you uncool is drummed into their heads. Their tiny heads don't hold much detail, but they thinking is sufficiently different and imaginative. For example, there was a recent case on CNN where a cheerleader refused to cheer for her rapist, but she lost the case at the Supreme Court. It takes a sufficiently skilled wordsmith to bend truth and confuse the world with details (either shown or deliberately left out) and turn people's decisions, kids often never loose track of common sense. They don't care about the details; all that matters is that a woman was hurt and didn't receive justice. And when this happens, they realize that the world was being governed by idiots (what with cops wanting bribes, government ignoring these corruptions, people refusing to help the needy and dilly-dallying of the Lokpal Bill).

So what happens to all their realizations? Though they were right, unfortunately thy all grow up.

[Thought]

Wow, check out this pre-school in Sweden. Far out stuff!

The article noted that nearly all the books at that daycare deal with adopted children, homosexual couples, and single parents: I would love to see their actual reading list. The books that I can recall reading at such a young age tended to lack defined parental figures entirely. I thus wonder to what extent this school is correcting an imbalance in a category and to what extent it is creating a new category in order to balance.

[tushantin]

Pardon me, but today's Friday, so this might be the only time in the week I get for a full-fledged reply to anyone. Here goes:

Lord J, I would have considered your post from a happy and practical point of view, despite your ignorance, if not for a single statement you offended me personally with. I say: Ouch! Is that any way you talk to a friend? If so, let me start with that offensive statement.

Tushantin, your religiosity and traditionalism hold you back from recognizing your own shortcomings.

And you, sir, bound in stone by your own blind bias and wretched prejudice from seeing a better picture. Secondly, your ignorance is in the post is showing as you completely miss the point of my conversation about the tradition and it's meaning, and even more so as I pointed out a cultural view; these are not my personal view, hence the term "considered". Thirdly, my reply to FaustWolf was simple cultural information that we usually share, and had no religious ground in the first place. So please, next time you accuse someone think twice before doing so, lest you look like a troll trying hard to look awesome.

Now let's get on to the change of topic; from Sibling Bond we head to Gender equality to Feminism. You guys just love conflict, don't you?

Yes it does. It may "make sense," but that does not preclude it from still being sexist, which it is.

Yeah, it's like saying that someone who isn't scared of the dark does not preclude Boogeyman from existing. See, there are two factors to my statement, the first being language's imperfection that drives bias in the subconscious. Second being the incomplete picture painted on the Western minds, which results in them thinking shit up. Why? Because everyone seems to be a fan of sensationalism these days. I don't mean to be racist here, but that's exactly what you're doing: enforcing your theories based on flawed or incomplete knowledge without making an effort to understand the culture and their reasoning.

This is such a common sentiment--not unique to your part of the world at all. People and societies in general routinely reason that, because males are fractionally physically stronger than females, they should have control over the key social facilities--industry and commerce--while leaving females to provide some form or another of bullshit "support," like shoes on feet.

What a popular belief, given how simple its fallacy is!

See, the fallacy of your reasoning and observation shows here again. Do again note when I carefully placed the words "important role to play towards the society, not necessarily limiting". The roles implied were fundamental and basic from the days of agriculture, where the genders mutual cooperation in each field was recognized; males handled farming, while females handled domestic chores, both fields equally difficult, but noble, to deal with. The not limiting part means that in modern times females (or males far that matter) don't necessarily have to be limited to their fundamental roles and can move beyond, such as advanced engineering or labor intensive military, if they choose to do so. Yes, the Hindu philosophy has a long line of tradition, but that doesn't make it an enemy of human rights. Our philosophy evolves over time and has been doing so for the past 9000 years, and more than anything we respect humanity, self-development and empathy.

Oh, and are you influenced by RPG too much that you wouldn't want a "supportive" protagonist for yourself? You think everyone should be forced to undertake Nuclear Physics or something? Come to India and listen to Feminist Movements here; being a housewife is a well respected occupation that many women proudly undertake. They aren't forced, that's for sure, and several also manage business at the same time, but all they want in return is recognition. And us males? We salute them, give them the freedom they deserve and assist them in every way we can. The reasoning behind this is one Hindi philosophy:

All roads end up home, and home is sacred, a haven.

Indeed, in many societies--including your own India--females are routinely made to perform menial hard labor such as carrying water, typically for little or no remuneration. The reality of female physical labor is completely ignored both in those people's levels of compensation and in the bogus social theories which assert that females cannot or should not perform hard or skilled labor.

Oh, should I applaud your observations? Should I worship you because you think you know more about my own nation than me? Sigh.

Let me correct you on this: in many societies (including America), females undertake menial hard labor because they are given the freedom to do so if they wish. Very few of those situations actually have females forced to do tasks, and that counts as slave trafficking (and sometimes also brothel), which I must point out is unjust. Today's age is far better than decades ago when women were being oppressed at a large scale, and will constantly keep getting better so long as people realize the pain and suffering of those before them.

Oh, and the "carrying water" thing? Remember the Domestic Chores talk. Women undertake the welfare of family and other tasks, while their husbands are out there under the fucking sun, tilling the land with heavy equipment on their shoulders that could break their spine! Their roles were of mutual compromise; if males struggled under the sun the females meanwhile would stock up on resources, such as water from the wells/rivers and preparing cowdung, food, gathering milk from the cows, maintain society, etc. Oh, and it gets worse in desert lands! 

But even then the women aren't restrained, as they frequently enter the farms and help their husbands plant seeds and such. But once they have a child, they prefer to stay home to care for their future. So tell me: why should we be so blinded by Feminism's light that we fail to see that the males also work incredibly hard for the society and yet are protective towards females?

But if you really want to talk about female oppression, how about Rajasthan? The state in a dessert with scarcity in religion but rich in culture nevertheless. The land of the Rajput. So what about it? Apparently Dowree is widespread in the area, and many uneducated village folks reach out for abortion as soon as the tests say that the baby would be female. Their reasoning is that a Girl in the family would be a burden to them, while a Boy may ask whatever amount in dowree as he pleases. And what do we get? Deaths of thousands of would-be kids (and also already born kids), all because they're unlucky enough to be born as females. And it's not just the case in Rajasthan either, but whole other places such as Africa, Middle East and Asia too.

Ah, this reminds me. Remember that anti-abortion scandal regarding the Law and Christianity at the USA? Well, apparently this inhumane killing is what they've been fearing all along, thus standing for the basic human right: the right to LIVE.

I try not to "believe" in anything. Belief is inherently erroneous in matters of fact and logic...

If so, you probably don't even know how a human mind functions in the first place. And strangely enough, it actually makes even you quite predictable. I do admit, though not so surprised at your belief in Fate, I am quite surprised at your belief in disbelief. 

[ZeaLitY]

Culture/religion/tradition are inseparable in many cases.

Let me correct you on this: in many societies (including America), females undertake menial hard labor because they are given the freedom to do so if they wish. Very few of those situations actually have females forced to do tasks,

Fortunately, there are decades of research on this subject, which have demonstrated that across the world (except in Scandinavia and the Netherlands), women do more domestic work than men. This is the concept of the second shift; women have to work in the daytime, and then work at night to rear children and keep the house clean. Just try getting married and expecting the opposite to occur, or to have an understanding male partner. We would not have "go make me a sandwich/get back in the kitchen" jokes if it were not the sad reality of sexism.

If you are brought up in a world in which gender roles constantly, daily reinforce an image of females being housewives, that is most certainly coercion. No one is holding a gun to a woman's head and telling her to do housework; they don't need to, as women have been brought up in that role ever since they started getting pink toys and Barbies and being prevented from exploring anything that's not hetero or gendernormative.

we fail to see that the males also work incredibly hard for the society and yet are protective towards females?

Chivalry is sexist and needs to be destroyed with prejudice. Its very core tenet is that women are part of a weak underclass, and thus need protecting from big, strong males. It is impossible for women to achieve autonomy and respect under such a system.

[Lord J Esq]

Tsk tsk, Tush. You shouldn't ask questions you don't want answered.

I appreciate that you are more willing to entertain intelligent discussion than many of your predecessors in Compendium days gone by, but we don't seem to make much progress in our discussions, do we?

You can spin your sexist views as far as you like; it's a rare person who shows me something I haven't seen before in that regard. I will apologize for offending your sensibilities, but not for criticizing your disrespectful and counterproductive views. I suggest, rather than taking personal offense, you focus on refining your comprehension of the subjects you aspire to address.

[tushantin]

Culture/religion/tradition are inseparable in many cases.

In many cases, but not every. But saying that they can't be separable is nothing but a blatant, superficial ignorance.

We would not have "go make me a sandwich/get back in the kitchen" jokes if it were not the sad reality of sexism.

Sigh. So the "British have bad teeth" jokes equally makes it real? On the contrary, they have the best teeth in the world. Oh, and so for the blondes being dumb joke? That would make one racist and false. Come on, people make jokes for the weirdest reasons, and they don't have to be taken as "facts".

If you are brought up in a world in which gender roles constantly, daily reinforce an image of females being housewives,...

See, this is something weird about those views in the first place. True, there are several classes women in the world that are being oppressed, but you have this strange, superficial idea that every female working in domestic environment is living a miserable life. But take my mother, for instance, an ordinary housewife. It was a simple test I discreetly conducted on my family members for personal curiosity, and mom placed comment when her sister asked monetary questions out of the blue:

"We may not have all the money in the world, but we never took any debt either. Yes, we're still living a lower-middle-class lifestyle, yes, my husband sheds sweat and blood to bring morsel home. But you see, we're living a happy life. We have everything we need right here."

A housewife who isn't satisfied with her life and is forced to follow impossible traditions, that's oppression. A housewife living a happy life in the company of her family, tradition or no tradition, can hardly be oppression. See, if you nurture a young girl to be a neurosurgeon that's a different issue, but try enforcing your "Domestic chores blah blah" feminist attitude here and you'd be frowned upon as a pest even by the female community, all because many people don't want to be driven out of their fields, just as how you can't make an artist build spaceship, or a chemist to show his expertise in theology.

Yes, female's contribution to domestic welfare go ages back (as in, over Thirty Fucking Thousand years back), so it's no wonder that they follow the same roles since they evolved that way. But my point was earlier that they aren't stuck to that role like they were before, and in many cases today they're even masters of household (as in, Head of Family), declaring directions the family members ought to take. You're merely overestimating the numbers.

Chivalry is sexist and needs to be destroyed with prejudice. Its very core tenet is that women are part of a weak underclass, and thus need protecting from big, strong males. It is impossible for women to achieve autonomy and respect under such a system.

Right. Tell that to several thousands of Indian females who tie the sacred thread on their brothers' wrist, because nobody expects them to do it; the thread signifies their love for their brothers, an unbreakable bond. Oh, and did I mention the tradition was started by a woman? Extremist Feminists quickly assume that everything is the Male's fault; in this case, no offense but, that statement of yours becomes self-defeating (i.e., telling women what to do and what not to do).

Tsk tsk, Tush. You shouldn't ask questions you don't want answered.

I asked a question about Fate, I had that answered, and we're done without the need of an argument; those were your honest thoughts after all. But what I didn't ask was your offense on my humble sharing of a tradition I found amusing. Way to ruin someone's mood, Joe.

I appreciate that you are more willing to entertain intelligent discussion than many of your predecessors in Compendium days gone by, but we don't seem to make much progress in our discussions, do we?

Yeah, your mindset is rigid and narrow, bounded by delusions and refusal to see a bigger picture due to your own self-conceited interests in personal achievements. I've learned so much from you since I first registered at the Compendium, and even admired your views, always looking up to you as a wise bloke that could make the world a better place. But today's posts from you almost shattered all respect I had for you.

You can spin your sexist views as far as you like; it's a rare person who shows me something I haven't seen before in that regard.

With living a happy life besides several friends, most of whom being females that cherish my encouragement and enthusiasm, and gladly serving humanity through happy and harsh times and doing my best to spread empathy, I doubt I need your petty opinion on how sexist I am.

I will apologize for offending your sensibilities, but not for criticizing your disrespectful and counterproductive views. I suggest, rather than taking personal offense, you focus on refining your comprehension of the subjects you aspire to address.

Dude, as I said, please read the message thoroughly and think twice before accusing someone. The first post which you apparently criticized was not my personal view to begin with. Still, if you want to criticize then simply point out the follies and explain why and be accurate about it (you're a master in language, aren't you?), else keep your empty suggestions to yourself and be respectful; otherwise next time I'd be justified in asking you to kindly Fuck Off.

See, this is what I mean about your mentalities being imperfect and prejudiced intentions. You guys only see a part of the picture and quickly move to accusations (then again, it isn't your fault, as the English language is structured that way, and thus your subconscious follows) trying to justify your "beliefs" that some of you still don't call beliefs. You guys keep chanting Ignorance is Evil, but ignorance / half-assed research is exactly where you base your arguments from in the first place!

I'd actually go so far as to say that my father works the hardest in the family, even assisting with household chores day and night, though I still sympathize with mom most. But even if a husband dedicates himself to household just so his wife could go accomplish her dreams, such as being an airhostess, it's going to be ignored by the general public. Reason? Fucking Sensationalism! The problem with Extreme Feminism is that they take any goddamned situation and see it as an apocalypse. Take the farmers for instance: The females work at domestic environments and the feminists complain (and Lord J call me an idiot for some reason), but tell the genders to switch roles and let the women work hard in the farms, the feminists would still riot in the name of female oppression and extreme labor. So what the fuck are they to do? Sit all day playing marbles with kids? Oh, that's a good idea, isn't it? Ah wait, according to ZeaLitY, even that is wrong.

 

That's when we realize that instead of tackling realistic female oppression the Western Feminist movements seemed to be stuck in Survival Mode. It's ridiculous!

I refuse to answer any more posts in this thread unless an actual female, such as Saj or Syna, join in the convo and state her views.

[rushingwind]

Debate is not my strong suit, unless we're talking science. I don't command the linguistic mastery of the other brilliant individuals on this board, often making me shrink away from fierce debates that I might have a strong opinion about. But, I will do my best here with the time I have.

Tushantin, I love you to death. I think you're awesome and you bring a wonderful quality here. I hope you always speak your mind and keep sharpening and shaping your personal philosophy and your mind. But in this particular case, I also think you're wrong. While I don't pretend to be an authority on this topic, I only know what I have experienced first hand.

I was raised in a conservative, sexist environment. I am a classic example of a woman who, in Zeality's words, doesn't need the gun held up to her head to fit into a typical "female" role. There was no malice in my upbringing... it was all culture and religion. They'd say, "women don't do that," and so I wouldn't. Most of the time, I never had to be told, because I felt guilty or somehow disrespectful if I stepped outside of a gendernormative role. Not only that, but in time I began to police other women in this role. Who hasn't heard of gossiping women? How many times have I gossiped with other girls about, "Geez, she's so unlady like. She acts so inappropriately."

The ultimate danger of this system is that the very ones victimized by it become the ones that enforce it. By gossiping and feeling entitled to call other women out on their "inappropriate" behavior, we use peer pressure to make other women conform to a typical, female role. Here is the worst part: Things are a little bit different for me now... but really, only a little. I am a hard atheist. I am a feminist. I can stand back and stare at the circus from which I came and see it for the hurtful, awful system it is. And yet, a part of me is still stuck where I once was. I feel like I'm acting wrong, and others are quick to try and use that same peer pressure to try and make me conform. When someone says to me, "A lady should not act the way you're acting," the rational part of my brain rolls my eyes, while a lesser, more fearful part shrinks and becomes embarrassed. The conditioning is so deeply ingrained that even today, as far as I've come, I have trouble escaping it.

I thought for quite a while that I was immune to this old way of thinking, until I lost my hair. Very rapidly, I found myself stuck in a stressful situation. For a while, when I was totally bald, bare eyebrows and all, nothing much changed. A few people gave me well-wishes, thinking me to be a cancer patient. Admittedly, I wore hats and scarfs designed for bald women, which did nothing to help that perception. After my hair began to grow back, and it reached a certain length, the scarf wouldn't stay in place and hats were itchy and uncomfortable. I tried out a wig, which was so hot and itchy that my scalp broke out in a rash that I could see through my thin hair. So I made the uncomfortable choice to go without anything on my head at all. I had no idea what I was getting into.

I did not feel like a whole person. I "dolled" myself up a lot. I wore lots of jewelry and girly clothes. Even that was not enough to stop the insults I'd receive from others. You see, because I didn't quite fit into my culture's definition of a woman, that meant I was fair game for peer pressure and bullying. Even worse, though, was that I was unable to brush these comments off easily. Deep down, the pressure and the insults, as angry as they made me, chimed with my cultural and religious upbringing that told me, "A proper woman would cover her head. A proper woman would never let herself look like a man." I did everything I could to fit back into the typical female role.

All this, when I supposedly knew better? That is sexism at its finest. Sexism so deeply, powerfully programmed within me that I'd do anything to crawl back in my role, because surely, my culture would have me believe that I am not properly female if I don't conform, all while it whispers in my ear, "Oh no, no, we're not being sexist at all. Certainly not." What complete, utter nonsense.

I have great love for culture and history. Anyone who knows me knows that the loss of knowledge and culture throughout human history pains me greatly (such as the burning of the Library of Alexandria). Culture and religion can be colorful, meaningful, and in the past has provided people with an identity, with comfort, and with pride. I don't think these things should be lost to time. That loss of knowledge would be a tragedy.

In that vein, I have long thought that individual cultures should be preserved and protected above all. However, I'm no longer so sure... As much as I personally value the uniqueness of different cultures, humanity has come to a point where we can no longer ignore the injustices we commit to life, whether it's the female of our own species or other animals. For example, traditional Chinese medicine has a long, colorful history. But we have reached a point in our societal evolution where we can no longer condone the meaningless torture of animals to prolong the practice. Someone (I don't recall who) said here on the Compendium that if this kind of stuff worked, it'd be called medicine, not alternative medicine. Such a claim can be made because we have reliable, verifiable ways of testing the effectiveness of this kind of stuff. It doesn't work. So preserve the memory of it, but discard the practice. And yet, doing so might rob many people of part of their identity. But which is worse... Cutting it out to the displeasure of many people, or allowing the practice to perpetuate because of some perceived beauty of the tradition? That only perpetuates needless suffering!

We have a terrible choice before us: Continue with the way things have always been, or embrace things the way they could be. Both are frightening options for people, but I think the one first one is more frightening.

Culture must change, or sexism will not end. We women who are indoctrinated and conditioned into our roles rarely, if ever, break free of them. Indeed, it's embarrassing for me to talk about it this way. I consider myself a rational, critical thinker. My worldview has shifted from one of religious mystery to a scientific skeptic. I do not accept claims without evidence, nor do I think mystery is a good thing. Though I may be a skeptic, I'm not a denialist or a contrarian. And yet, there is this insidious, deeply ingrained gender role within me that I grapple with constantly. Rationally, I know what's going on and how sexist the whole system is. Good luck getting my emotional side in line with it when I begin to feel embarrassed. Just like my religious deconversion was for so long, this is still a work in progress.

If society wasn't sexist at its most basic level, it wouldn't be this way. I wouldn't have to change my way of thinking at all! And yet, despite its cries to the contrary, society and culture tend to be sexist, and they quietly impose those sexist views on all of their children.

When I hear jokes along the lines of, "get back into the kitchen," I just feel sad. I feel sad for the men who say it and the women who laugh and go along with it. They don't understand the system they're perpetuating. They can't understand, because they were raised and programmed in such a way that it doesn't ever occur to them that they're being sexist. And if you were to try and explain it to them, they'd just laugh you off and think you're being silly.

This is exactly why we can't keep raising our children this way. Humanity can be better than this.

Yes, female's contribution to domestic welfare go ages back (as in, over Thirty Fucking Thousand years back), so it's no wonder that they follow the same roles since they evolved that way. But my point was earlier that they aren't stuck to that role like they were before, and in many cases today they're even masters of household (as in, Head of Family), declaring directions the family members ought to take. You're merely overestimating the numbers.

Yes, we are often quite stuck to those roles. The illusion of choice in this matter, is... well, just an illusion. Those who would break free do so often under dire circumstances. For example, I knew a girl who wanted to go into Physics. She went off to college, did very well her first year, and then her family refused to speak to her because she wasn't getting married and having children like a "proper" daughter should. She tried to continue, but was so upset by her family cutting her off that she began to perceive that she'd done wrong. Her guilt eventually caused her to switch her major to English, and she became a teacher. And she got married and had kids, and her family was happy. Except, she's not happy at all, but she still feels that it would be wrong to pursue a physics degree like she wants to, because her family (and now her husband, too) would not approve.

Technically, she had a choice. But culture and society have a lot of safeguards in place and actions they can take to get women back on the "correct" path. I know too many brilliant women who ended up stuck as housewives and never got careers in the maths and sciences that they so dearly loved.

Some women do break free, and for that I'm grateful. That means that there is hope, and that there is some progress being made. It's not all bad news.

When I was a child, I always wanted to be a scientist. My mom, however, thought that was not a good idea, and filled my head with all kinds of nonsense about how women can't do that kind of stuff, and how I'd be poor, all alone, and wouldn't ever find a job because women didn't do that kind of stuff... yada yada. Here I am in my adulthood again pursuing the sciences, and I've received some of the same criticism from well-meaning, but ignorant family members. I am fortunate enough to recognize this ingrained, society-created sexism for what it is, so I can work my way through it. Many women are not so lucky.

It is far worse for women in other parts of the world. Here, it's not socially acceptable to publicly demean women (therefore, we've managed to change the nature of sexism so that women accept it, without ever realizing it's sexist). In other places, however, it's perfectly acceptable and even the norm. You mentioned a society that kills female babies because of dowries... Yes. Sexism is bad, and cultural and societal norms can often perpetuate it.

It is not easy for me to say this, because I love the study of culture and society so. I wonder about all the Roman authors of whom not a word of their books has survived. I wonder about ancient Native American cultures that were decimated by Europeans. But that being said, we must do away with the customs and traditions that perpetuate sexism, specifically because they're so good at quietly perpetuating the problem!

I am optimistic. I believe, one day, we will solve this issue. Perhaps it won't be my way, who knows? It's a cold, dark, dreary world, and those of us capable of shining bright must do so, or nothing will ever change. That includes you, Tushantin! That includes every one of us capable of comprehending this issue, and those of us who understand other important issues.

[rushingwind]

I suppose that, in a nutshell, what I'm trying to say is that culture is sexist without realizing it, and because those of us within it don't realize it, we continue to perpetuate it. That's what makes it so dangerous, and so very difficult to eradicate. And even those of us who eventually realize it have trouble breaking completely free of the old ways of thinking.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Rushingwind, I realize this isn't the most concrete thing, but for what it's worth, most of my friends who are scientists or studying to be scientists are women. You aren't alone in this fight, and it gets won...over and over.

[Thought]

Tush, part of the problems seems to come from how you and others perceive genders. Perhaps I am just overly sensitive to this, but even saying that males are physically stronger borders on sexism in the right circles, despite there being real physiological differences between the sexes that, speaking purely as a generality, would support such a claim. At least parts of Western culture are very anti-differences when it comes to men and women.  You, on the other hand, seem to be more willing to admit that there might be differences and thus are also willing to consider these differences might lead to practical applications. My objective here is to support the anti-differences perspective and to illustrate the inherent problem of a pro-differences stance.

First, allow me to offer this conceptual framework: sexism can both be proscriptive and prohibitive in nature.

To use RW's example (excellent post, by the way -- you are a much better writer than you give yourself credit for): telling a woman that she can't become a scientist is, I believe, clearly sexist and undesirable to everyone engaged in this discussion. Likewise, I think we'd all agree that it is sexist to tell a woman, out of hand, that she can't rock the bald look, or be a steelworker, or run a Fortune 500 company. All these are examples of what I am here terming prohibitive sexism. From your posts, Tush, it seems fairly clear that you reject prohibitive sexism just like anyone else. And thus, I believe, the point of tension. But before I address that, I should cover what proscriptive sexism might be.

If telling a woman that she can't be a scientist is prohibitive sexism, then telling a woman that she can be a housewife is proscriptive sexism. Truly speaking, a woman can be a housewife, so one might wonder how that is sexist. The problem is that such a statement is still limiting if it is the primary one that is heard. Saying what one can do turns into what one must do, and that is the problem. You said that in Sikh/Hindu culture men are considered the physical laborers while women are masters of domestic affairs, but that this isn't limiting. Unfortunately, while such a stance could theoretically not be sexist (I will get to that in a moment), in actual practice it has the result of limiting options for each gender. What if a particular woman likes physical activity very much? She goes out and tries to become a porter, let’s say, but every job turns her down because, hey, everyone knows that the men who applied for the position along with her are physically stronger. Such a culture might allow something to be conceptually possible, but in actual practice that possibility is suppressed. In the West we still have similar problems all over the place. Science is a fairly good example, again. It isn't just that one's family might say that women can't be scientists, other scientists say that too. They expect that a woman would want to have a family, would want to take maternity leave, would want to take care of children, and thus expecting women to do some things causes them to preclude them from other things.


Now I said that it might be possible, in a hypothetical model, for proscriptive roles for genders to not be sexist. That, though, is just because we can imagine that saying that people can do activity X does not necessitate that such a statement would discourage those people from an unmentioned activity Y. If women were told that they can be scientists, then that inherently dictate that they are also being subtly told that they can't be firefighters, nurses, or housewives. Indeed, it might even be possible for a few individuals to, in actual practice, hold to such an ideal. But, unfortunately, human society inherently does not function in such a way.

A general problem with allowing differences between the sexes influence social expectations is that it is unnecessary. Let us assume for a moment that women are more emotionally stable: is that not an ideal that both men and women should strive for? Instead of saying that a good woman is emotionally stable, why don't we just say that a good human is emotionally stable? Instead of saying that good men fulfill their responsibilities to their families, why not say that good humans fulfill those responsibilities? Sexual dimorphism is comparatively minor in humans: basically, the only thing that a man can do that a woman can't is donate sperm, and that is a very poor basis to build social expectations on. If there is a desirable trait in either gender that we, as a society, might wish to promote, then there is a desirable trait in humans that we would wish to promote.

Tush, you said that "each gender has a unique and important role to play towards the society, ...like two legs keeping us steady." The part that is important to the survival of a culture is what they define as unique and important roles, not which gender those roles are applied to. Would it radically undermine Sikh or Hindu culture to say, "being physically protective and being emotionally stable are two unique and important roles that keep society steady, like two legs"? If sexism were totally eradicated, then society would be free to promote the roles, rather than the genders, and anyone could fulfill either to the same stabilizing effect.

Someone (I don't recall who) said here on the Compendium that if this kind of stuff worked, it'd be called medicine, not alternative medicine.

I believe that was a Zealitism. Although to play the devil's advocate, that statement is not exactly true. "Medicine" and "alternative medicine" have historical roots and would often times be better termed as "Professionalized Medicine" and "Non-Professionalized Medicine," respectively. Professionalized Medicine is valued because it has an invested interest in producing real and reliable results, and it has a means of ensuring that all its members conform to these standards. Non-Professionalized medicine usually has poor or no abilities to ensure the quality of its practitioners. This is an issue of people, rather than of science (although science does eventually play a role in the professionalization process).

Chiropracty is a more socially acceptable alternative medicine, one that even proper medical practitioners might refer you to, but it still contains a lot of tomfoolery. Even a practitioner who provides legitimate treatments might also be a huckster trying to pawn off invalid hypotheses and ineffective products. However, even though legitimate benefits of the practice have been identified, the field is itself still considered alternative medicine and the usable practices have not been incorporated into a different, more professionalized, medical field. In sort, some things in it DO work, but it is still called alternative medicine. That status remains unchanged because the field remains unprofessionalized.