Sexism - An argument with a comrade

[BlackFrancis]

I think I was treated unfairly by a comrade just now on the issue of Sexism. Let me set a few things out.
She is sternly against Sexism, and rightly so. But I hold the view that Sexism comes from both sides. You cannot have one half of the population on one extreme, without the other on an extreme also.

This is how the latter part of our conversation went on MSN:

Black Lynx says:
To be honest, I think this is all one big confusion
Black Lynx says:
I do honestly believe that both men and women are taken away from their true nature as sexual beings. Both repressed
Black Lynx says:
And you can't deny that as you must understand, for a woman to be opressed, takes someone to be socially ill or opressed also to opress her
Q says:
What?
Black Lynx says:
Oppress*
Q says:
All working-class women are oppressed under capitalism.
Black Lynx says:
And all working class men too
Q says:
Not to the same extent though.
Black Lynx says:
Yes..
Q says:
Women are systematically oppressed by sexism every day of their lives.
Q says:
Men are not subject to that.
Black Lynx says:
'Sexism' the faceless monster that decends from the hills at night. Give me a fucking break! It comes from somewhere
Black Lynx says:
Naturally from the sexual oppression of men
Q says:
It comes from the ruling-class! Just like racism and homophobia!
Q says:
Some socialist you are. Fuck off.

After this she either blocked me or signed off...

I want a 2nd opinion on this. Was I treated unfairly, or was her outburst to be expected?

[rouchambeau]

I side with your friend. I don't really see how you can back up any of your points.

Black Lynx says:
'Sexism' the faceless monster that decends from the hills at night. Give me a fucking break! It comes from somewhere
Black Lynx says:
Naturally from the sexual oppression of men

Summary: "women bring it upon themselves".

[D_Bokk]

To be expected. Women are far more oppressed, not only economically; but socially. And what do you mean by male sexual oppression?

[Red Heretic]

She is absolutely right. The problem with the terms "racism" and "sexism" is that the imply that the problem is one side or the other attacking the other. That is not at all what reality is.

The real problems are national chauvinism, and male chauvinism. That is, the oppression of people of color by white people, and the oppression of women by men. Men are not oppressed by women. You've got to look at the fundamental material reality of things.

[RedDan]

I agree with BlackFrancis. In Britain, and I presume most of Europe and North America, men have sexism just as much against them as women do.
Look at those new insurance companies who generalise that women are safer drivers. This is sexism against men because it implies that all women are better drivers, this is untrue as my dad is a far better driver than my mum.
Also, some women exploit anti-sexism. They don't want to work in the kitchen but they also don't want to be in the military call ip lists, and we all know it is untrue that women can't fight in a war, there were plenty of perfectly good women soldiers and tank crews in the Soviet army during WW2.
In most Muslim countries (and others too I expect) it is true that women are far more oppressed by men though.

[rouchambeau]

RedDan: that's such a piss-poor argument. In no way does that prove that men are oppressed just as much as women.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by RedDan
Look at those new insurance companies who generalise that women are safer drivers. This is sexism against men because it implies that all women are better drivers, this is untrue as my dad is a far better driver than my mum.

Companies base this off of statistics, they don't do it because they think men are inferior - they do it because it'll save them money.

Also, some women exploit anti-sexism. They don't want to work in the kitchen but they also don't want to be in the military call ip lists, and we all know it is untrue that women can't fight in a war, there were plenty of perfectly good women soldiers and tank crews in the Soviet army during WW2.

A feminist doesn't refuse to work in the kitchen, she refuses to be the only person who does housework. Also, the government's sexism isn't against men when it comes to women in the military - it's against women. No one, outside of the ignorant patriots, wants to be on the list for potential draftees... but I highly doubt that women will use that "but I'm only a feeble woman" excuse that you so eloquently hinted at.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by RedDan@Aug 31 2006, 08:49 PM
I agree with BlackFrancis. In Britain, and I presume most of Europe and North America, men have sexism just as much against them as women do.

Women make up half the world's poulation. Work 10% of the world's jobs, and own 1% of the worlds wealth. And this is much the same in Britain. Women are less likely to get jobs in Britain. Fact. If their is a male candidate and a female candidate for the same job, both with the same qualifications, both equally suitable, in some cases the woman being slightly more suitable, the man will 90% of the time still be given the job rather than the woman. Chauvanism has always been a problem in Britain and in the World over. I blame reilgion for a lot of it. Most mainstream religions, particularly Christianity, promote Chauvanism in their holy books and in their teachings. God is always a man. The heros in the bible are all men. Jesus had no female diciples. Apart from Jesus' mother Mary, how many other heroic women are presented in the bible? The only ones I can think of are mad women and prostitutes.

EDIT: Have a look at the richest people in the world, how many are women? Have a look at the most successful business people in the world, how many are women? Why do you think we often hear the term 'Businessman', but hardly ever hear anyone talking about 'Businesswomen'. Have a look at any Parliament in the UK, any administration in the US. Look at the ratio of women to men. Has their ever been a female president? Think about these things. Look at the facts, and you will see which sex is more oppressed.

[Tommy-K]

And also, completely off topic, but, shouldn't this be posted in Discrimination?

[Morag]

Yeah, I think your friend is right, too. While there is some discrimination against men, ei., that their more violent, or whatever, it pales in comparison to the discrimination and oppression of women. Not forced to serve in the military? Oh, no! I see how that shows male oppression is just as bad as the Snow White syndrome... And seriously, if there are finally statistics proving men are not as safe of drivers as women, I welcome that after the calls of "Crazy woman driver!" that I still hear.

[Janus]

Moved to Discrimination.

[Reaver]

woman bring it upon themselves... no, i feel that there ARE some extreme womans rights activists out there i'll give you that but ever since fight for womans rights with the woman suffragettes the image has kind of stuck with us. although i personally feel at the time they had it coming and i am glad we got the vote... not that im old enough to even use it or that chance is... i will never use it anyway... i feel some people will take it to far either to attract attentions so to gather followers Or because they lost the main cause of the action. i feel only certain woman bring it upon themselves and by doing so bring it upon everyone else.
Also that "crazy woman driver" thing. my dads a crap driver. i only feel you'll here the phrase "crazy woman driver" or whatever from a dominating and quite frankly impatient driver who honestly has no time to actually understand what may really be happening... and who the hell uses that phrase anyway...? ¬¬`

[Monty Cantsin]

That’ driver insurance makes sense, but from the same economic rationality women should be less able to get home loans, they have a higher chance of being out of work because of things like pregnancy. Is that Fair? No but its capitalism taking into account natural (biological) differences between the sexes, why would you expect a capitalist not to calculate risk factors based around sex?

I do think a lot of this debate falls into group think and narrow view points. I think of myself more of a post-structuralist when it comes to gender, the relationships and roles can be interpreted in so many ways you can’t proved a universal law-table telling us what is better or worse because it’s an individual’s choice. So I believe gender roles should not be enforced, people should be able to deconstruct and reconstructed how they fit into different gender roles.

[Esplin]

I have seen sexism, towards both men and women. Women are discriminated much more than men in history, but that is no reason to put the destruction of either discrimination higher or lower than the other. The discrimination of women, as I have seen, is more obivious, more out in the open, and seems to mock the characteristics of men, whereas the discrimination of men, as I have seen is more suttle, veiled and clever, but hurts just as much and involves applying certian attributes which are undesirable. I agree with you. It is certian indiviuals, systems and beliefs created by both men and women that create sexism. I have studied Capitialism, of course, and have yet to see a single attribute in the system itself that indicates bias towards women.

Summary: "women bring it upon themselves".

Sometimes true. Queen Victora said that the sufferagettes (Women who wanted the vote in England) should've been given a "Good Whipping".

I personally belive Sexism Comes from people.

To me!

[Dyst]

I have studied Capitialism, of course, and have yet to see a single attribute in the system itself that indicates bias towards women.

Let's see, how about people not being paid for doing "womens jobs" (housework, children, cooking, whatever), but for having a job.

And having a job is a lot easier for men (says statistics) in most countries.

Therefore women do work but are not paid and they often have to rely on men for money.

[TC]

As i've pointed out elsehwhere, one of the conceptual, catagorical problems with conversations about sexism (or racism for that matter) is that it basically refers to two closely related but different things.

There is sexism as personal prejudice which operates on an individual level, and sexism as social oppression which operates on an institutional, economic, material level.

The first type of sexism as prejudice clearly goes both ways and all ways, the later type of sexism as oppression like all oppression, follows economic lines according to power dynamics.


I think one problem though is that while it is undeniably correct that men are not institutionally oppressed by sexism, to believe that it then follows from this that they are not individually victimized by sexist prejudice is false, although naturally this form of personal victimization is less politically relevant than institutional exploitation.



I don't think you can have a sensible conversation about sexism without clearly delineating what catagory of sexism you're refering to because conflating the two results in incompatable comparisons.