next »

[croaker]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/15/kaye.ohioracegender/index.html

I saw this article on CNN today and thought this would be an interesting topic for discussion.  The question I am asking is not which one is worse, in terms of consequences (lower pay, access to decent education and healthcare, etc...) now or historically. I am asking instead if sexism is less offensive to you and others than racism and what implications does that have for policy and practice?

[prytania3]

I think to the public-at-large sexism is much less offensive than racism.

[daurousseau]

Why should the answer matter or have any affect on anything? Philosophy could post a list of logical fallacies and often has. I've never seen anyone try to rank them as dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

[acrimone]

Why should the answer matter or have any affect on anything? Philosophy could post a list of logical fallacies and often has. I've never seen anyone try to rank them as dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

Offensiveness isn't a measure of truth value.

[polly_mer]

I think to the public-at-large sexism is much less offensive than racism.

I agree with Prytania.  I think the reason is many people will admit that one can learn the behaviors to pass as the proper race, but few people will let one pass as the proper gender.

[treehugger1]

No. Not less offensive. But sexism is definitely taken less seriously than racism. Just think of the widespread boycotts against South Africa vs. the relative lack of international outrage over the gender apartheid under the Taliban. I also find it annoying that the academic left (in the humanities) cannot bring itself to out-and-out condemn the blatant sexism in Muslims countries. "Oh, it's a delicate issue... women's identities are constructed around the veil." Oh, blah, blah, blah.

[prytania3]

No. Not less offensive. But sexism is definitely taken less seriously than racism. Just think of the widespread boycotts against South Africa vs. the relative lack of international outrage over the gender apartheid under the Taliban. I also find it annoying that the academic left (in the humanities) cannot bring itself to out-and-out condemn the blatant sexism in Muslims countries. "Oh, it's a delicate issue... women's identities are constructed around the veil." Oh, blah, blah, blah.

Agreed.

[daurousseau]

Why should the answer matter or have any affect on anything? Philosophy could post a list of logical fallacies and often has. I've never seen anyone try to rank them as dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

Offensiveness isn't a measure of truth value.

Indeed. But what could the point of the question have been other than to create a little wiggle room for one or the other? Why trump sound thought (wrong = wrong) with verbal games?

[bewildered]

No. Not less offensive. But sexism is definitely taken less seriously than racism. Just think of the widespread boycotts against South Africa vs. the relative lack of international outrage over the gender apartheid under the Taliban. I also find it annoying that the academic left (in the humanities) cannot bring itself to out-and-out condemn the blatant sexism in Muslims countries. "Oh, it's a delicate issue... women's identities are constructed around the veil." Oh, blah, blah, blah.

For all the awfulness of the Taliban, I do believe many American leftists were genuinely confused about how to prioritize "the way they treat women is awful" vs. "this is a different cultural norm that perhaps I ought to respect-- and it's not like all the women under the Taliban are Western-style feminists."  By contrast, the (living) Dead White European Males running South African Apartheid didn't seem to have any cache as a "different culture"-- they seemed all too similar to the white cracker racists in America.

But then it's not like I didn't read several left wing American condemnations of the Taliban, back in the day.  Several of them seemed particularly disgusted with the Clinton administration for not being more aggressive in its own condemnations.

[mended_drum]

No.

[larryc]

No. Not less offensive. But sexism is definitely taken less seriously than racism.

Absolutely--and not just on a geopolitical level. You hear sexist humor and read sexist comments all the time, while racism has been driven underground.

[lodore66]

What's interesting about this discussion is why (and this seems to be the consensus) that sexism is less 'offensive' than sexism.  For what it's worth, my guess is that sexism is ultimately predicated on the biologically rooted attraction that the majority of people feel for members of the opposite sex, and thus sexism has an 'attraction' (I use the term very advisedly) that extends across racial/ethnic boundaries.  Thus, two men from different racial backgrounds may well participate in a moment of shared solidarity over a sexist comment in a way that doesn't really happen with racial categories.  After all, there is no biological hormone that drives you to frustration when you're rejected by someone from a different racial group.  The net result is that we find it less easy to excuse racism than sexism, because racism is based on a rational decision to dislike people of a different provenance from oneself -- unlike sexism, which, however illegitimately, we can always identify with on a visceral level. 

Note: I am not trying to defend sexism . . .

[lotsoquestions]

You might want to take a look at this great new piece by Robin Morgan called "Good-bye to all that 2" http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

She looks at certain instances in the Clinton and Obama campaigns and asks exactly this question -- why is it OK to express misogyny -- when you would be arrested for making similar racist comments.  One particular telling sentence in the piece for me was when she talks about the sexist idiot who held up the shirt and yelled "iron my shirt" at Hillary Clinton.  SHe asks what would have happened to him had he held up his shoes and yelled "shine my shoes" at Barack Obama.  Somehow or other, it probably wouldn't have been reported on the evening news as "funny."  Since then I've asked others (those who call themselves feminist and those who don't) to look at this piece and they all walked away saying, "I can't quite believe but I agree with a lot of what Robin Morgan is saying.  She really made me think."  Enjoy.

[dinglejingleus]

Sexism is less offensive to most people.

I think this is because there are biological differences between the sexes and most Americans equate sex with gender more or less.The legitimate biological differences open the door for the recognition of difference which is then seen as grounds for justifying sexism.

Watch TV for an hour. Men are selfish morons who can't seem to operate a mop or cook the kids a decent meal, and tend to play the role of buffoon on most sitcoms. Women are bodies (if it's football) or are perfectly put together, selfless moms willing to put their best interest aside for the good of the family.

[sockgumbee]

Lodore 66 & Dingle jingleus
But by the same token we could say that racism exists because people are different or are not attracted to people that look different from them. However plenty of people are attracted to people who look different from themselves. And it does not explain why women or homosexual men can be sexist as easily as a straight males.

Some feminists have posited that sexism comes from the fear of what a women could do. Females can give birth, although clearly all women don't and many women can't--something that male humans cannot do. So if women have political or economic or other kinds of power where would it end?

Lots 'o' Questions
I'm with you on this one. Granted Hillary is not as charming or silver tongued as Barack. But they both have been critical of each other. However even public radio newscasters and others hint when talking about Hillary that she has some personality fault because she is out spoken and focus more on her criticisms of Barack that his of her--probably because he says them so nicely. My favorite is when he said that Hillary would make a great candidate but he's the better candidate.