Happy Birthday Slutwalk!

[Witsec1]

Jaynie, I dont think anyone is saying you have to follow a certain script or use certain terms to confront sexism. For the example of "girls just aren't good at math" I might just stick to facts. A high school kid wearing a "no fat chicks shirt" needs a different response than a middle aged man wearing the same shirt. And so on. There are so many variables.

What has us rolling our eyes are statements like these:

We live in a sexist society, and we are all indoctrinated into that from birth. If we are all indoctrinated into this sexist society it doesn't make sense to single out "sexist men" as though they are a unique and defined group.

Keep in mind that this was from her "clarification." If I was a man who had gone to great efforts to confront my own sexism and distance myself from men like Rush Limbaugh, etc., I would be quite insulted by that statment.

I also don't think that Men benefit from sexism or patriarchy, and that is a strong opinion I have based on personal experience. Money and power aside, patriarchy oppresses equally.

This is just... I still don't... wtf????

[ElphabaGalinda]

Yes, but it wasn't really all that long ago that beating your wife WAS culturally acceptable. It was culturally acceptable to believe that a wife did NOT have the right to not participate in sex with her husband if she wasn't feeling like it. It used to be culturally acceptable to expect a female office worker to make coffee, serve the male workers, and accept men treating them like sexual objects.

The only way any of this becomes not culturally acceptable is for us to challenge them, and the people making these acts. If that involves labeling them, then that's what we do. To be fair, they may not realize it - and maybe being confronted with the idea that someone thinks they fit that label will cause them to examine their actions. Or they'll show their true colors and you'll know to avoid them.

THIS! :clap: Things remain culturally acceptable if we allow them to remain culturally acceptable. Maybe someone doesn't realize whatever sexist thing they're saying is sexist because of the culture they were brought up in, sure that could be the case. But then if you say they're sexist, maybe they'll not want to be sexist and they'll stop their behaviour. Some people will never change but you can make people reflect upon their behaviour if you call it out. Marital rape is an example of something that was culturally acceptable and legal not long ago. So was owning slaves. That changed because people decided they wouldn't accept it anymore. Also saying women should stay in the kitchen is not in the least bit culturally acceptable where I'm from so as you can see what's culturally acceptable depends on where you are and it shouldn't be used to govern your behaviour. Something doesn't stop being wrong just because a culture accepts it.

[Witsec1]

I think that's exactly what happened though. First people started to object to one egregious behavior, then, as social awareness built, you started seeing more awareness of emotional, verbal, financial, and other forms of non-physical abuse. Social change movements have to start with the most damaging elements first, then move on to other aspects.

What is your point? For attitudes to change, do you think that it was necessary to be sensitive to the feelings of men who beat their wives and that anti-abuse campaigners were always careful not to label them or their behavior negatively because it might make them feel bad?

[holothuroidea]

Why is it so wrong to treat people with kindness and respect?

It's entirely possible to challenge someone's sexism while still respecting their feelings.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

What is your point? For attitudes to change, do you think that it was necessary to be sensitive to the feelings of men who beat their wives and that anti-abuse campaigners were always careful not to label them or their behavior negatively because it might make them feel bad?

The point is nothing to do with the feelings of abusers. The point is that I think movements like feminism, civil rights, ect. have to tackle the big issues first--the thing that tangibly affect people-- then move on to changes in syntax, ect.

I was speaking to the historical way the anti-abuse movement started. Don't beat your wives. Then, that evolved into abuse being more of a pathology, not a one-time, provokable thing. Then, that included. don't prevent them from having financial autonomy, don't belittle them, remember they are people too.

I don't think the anti-abuse movement would have gotten off the ground if they had started with the small things like no kitchen jokes, because in the day that the movement got started, there was really no context for the change. Instead they went with the biggest things--don't cause physical harm to your wife, this is abuse. Movements have more staying power when you establish that the oppressed group does, in fact, have the right not to be oppressed, then highlight the ways that they are oppressed.

I think what Holothuroida is trying to say is that there's a difference between men who are passively sexist--those who consider women equal in intellect and ability but don't stop to think how small things like kitchen and driving jokes support a patriarchal system--and those who are actively sexist, the ones who are actually abusive, who really do think that women are inferior, who want to take autonomy away from women again.

If that's what she means then it is a point to take into account. Being passively sexist, and being willing to change that, is NOT the same as being actively sexist. NOT AT ALL. Men who would potentially be allies to the women's movements don't need to be maligned just because they slip up and say, unintentionally, something that can be construed as misogynist.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Why is it so wrong to treat people with kindness and respect?

It's entirely possible to challenge someone's sexism while still respecting their feelings.

We do need to keep into account that actually abusing someone is rarely a one-off, and is more of a personality type or a pathological state. Abusers usually don't change.

[Witsec1]

Why is it so wrong to treat people with kindness and respect?

It's entirely possible to challenge someone's sexism while still respecting their feelings.

As I said, there isn't a script you have to follow to confront sexism. There are many ways of doing it. My question is how can you confront sexism if you don't even admit that it's there - that there is not a separate and distinct group of people who are not passively conditioned sexists, but active sexists who want to oppress YOU and your daughters (if any).

Also, I think maybe you need to question why you feel it is your job to always take care of other people's feelings, even when adocating for the rights of all our daughters agains people who want to hurt them and limit their potential.

[ElphabaGalinda]

I think what Holothuroida is trying to say is that there's a difference between men who are passively sexist--those who consider women equal in intellect and ability but don't stop to think how small things like kitchen and driving jokes support a patriarchal system--and those who are actively sexist, the ones who are actually abusive, who really do think that women are inferior, who want to take autonomy away from women again.

If that's what she means then it is a point to take into account. Being passively sexist, and being willing to change that, is NOT the same as being actively sexist. NOT AT ALL. Men who would potentially be allies to the women's movements don't need to be maligned just because they slip up and say, unintentionally, something that can be construed as misogynist.

I agree that there's a difference between men who are passively sexist and those who are actively sexist, and although I think those who are actively sexist are worse, they're still both sexist. If they want to be allies to the women movement, I'd think they would want people to point out when they say something mysogynist. Such men would probably, if it were pointed out to them, want to change their passively sexist behaviour. So if they ARE willing to change that, there's really no other way than to point out to them what they've doing, which is being sexist or how will they know? It reminds me of what I do when people use gay as an insult, which many people who are very accepting and not homophobic do. As a lesbian it really bothers me, so when I hear it I tell them it bothers me and explain why. And you know what those awesome accepting people do? They appologize for being inadvertantly offensive and they make a concious effort to change their behaviour because they're awesome and once they realize the problems with what they're doing, they don't want to do it anymore. That's how you get people who are saying something offensive inadvertently to change.

[holothuroidea]

We do need to keep into account that actually abusing someone is rarely a one-off, and is more of a personality type or a pathological state. Abusers usually don't change.

I am going to take your terms "passively sexist" and "actively sexist" and use them because I think you were spot-on.

I'm not talking about people who are actively abusers, I'm talking about people who are passively participating in an abusive culture around them.

[holothuroidea]

As I said, there isn't a script you have to follow to confront sexism. There are many ways of doing it. My question is how can you confront sexism if you don't even admit that it's there - that there is not a separate and distinct group of people who are not passively conditioned sexists, but active sexists who want to oppress YOU and your daughters (if any).

I do acknowledge sexism is there, have you not read my posts?

Also, I think maybe you need to question why you feel it is your job to always take care of other people's feelings, even when adocating for the rights of all our daughters agains people who want to hurt them and limit their potential.

Hurting people's feelings makes me feel like a miserable sack of crap, so I tend to avoid it. I don't think everyone needs to avoid hurting people's feelings. I don't think that people who call passive sexists out as sexist are in any way wrong, or that they shouldn't do it.

I have changed my tune quite a bit from my original post not understanding deeleam's use of the term "sexist men." Holothuroidea from two days ago is not the same Holothuroidea today, I learned some stuff. Don't you love it when that happens? :D

[Witsec1]

But holo actually is not drawing a distinction between passively sexist and actively sexist, or else she doesn't accept that actively sexist men exist. She stated there's not a distinct and separate group of sexist men, and hasn't backed off from that statement, she even repeated it when asked to clarify.

The point is nothing to do with the feelings of abusers. The point is that I think movements like feminism, civil rights, ect. have to tackle the big issues first--the thing that tangibly affect people-- then move on to changes in syntax, ect.

I was speaking to the historical way the anti-abuse movement started. Don't beat your wives. Then, that evolved into abuse being more of a pathology, not a one-time, provokable thing. Then, that included. don't prevent them from having financial autonomy, don't belittle them, remember they are people too.

I don't think the anti-abuse movement would have gotten off the ground if they had started with the small things like no kitchen jokes, because in the day that the movement got started, there was really no context for the change. Instead they went with the biggest things--don't cause physical harm to your wife, this is abuse. Movements have more staying power when you establish that the oppressed group does, in fact, have the right not to be oppressed, then highlight the ways that they are oppressed.

Well, the history of activism against domestic abuse is more complex than that I think. I think early on a lot of the rhetoric was built on traditional male stereotypes and appeals to chivalry. The idea that women have rights evolved separately.

Also I think you're wrong about civil rights movements always tackling the big things first. Segregated bus seating and eating areas were relatively small and trivial aspects of the oppression of African-Americans in the pre-civil rights era, but focussing a lot of effort on those areas was really effective.

[Witsec1]

I do acknowledge sexism is there, have you not read my posts?

Hurting people's feelings makes me feel like a miserable sack of crap, so I tend to avoid it. I don't think everyone needs to avoid hurting people's feelings. I don't think that people who call passive sexists out as sexist are in any way wrong, or that they shouldn't do it.

I have changed my tune quite a bit from my original post not understanding deeleam's use of the term "sexist men." Holothuroidea from two days ago is not the same Holothuroidea today, I learned some stuff. Don't you love it when that happens? :D

Sorry, I must have missed where you said you had changed your mind about that.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I agree that there's a difference between men who are passively sexist and those who are actively sexist, and although I think those who are actively sexist are worse, they're still both sexist. If they want to be allies to the women movement, I'd think they would want people to point out when they say something mysogynist. Such men would probably, if it were pointed out to them, want to change their passively sexist behaviour. So if they ARE willing to change that, there's really no other way than to point out to them what they've doing, which is being sexist or how will they know? It reminds me of what I do when people use gay as an insult, which many people who are very accepting and not homophobic do. As a lesbian it really bothers me, so when I hear it I tell them it bothers me and explain why. And you know what those awesome accepting people do? They appologize for being inadvertantly offensive and they make a concious effort to change their behaviour because they're awesome and once they realize the problems with what they're doing, they don't want to do it anymore. That's how you get people who are saying something offensive inadvertently to change.

I guess what chaffs me is when people act like the two are equal in degree, and I think my experience is colored by getting out of a relationship a few years ago where my partner very nearly killed me. I get why stopping passive sexism is important, but when I hear it brought up I keep thinking, "Kitchen jokes are annoying and all, but what in the hell does stopping them do for the woman who's being choked by her husband right now because she burned the meat loaf?"

[bananacat]

I have to disagree. Psychological abuse can be just as harmful as physical abuse, except many people think it doesn't count. My dad made all of our lives horrible without ever hitting any of us. My mom nearly died because he drove her to attempt suicide, and that is not something I say lightly because suicide is nearly always nobody's "fault". Also, abuse tends to escalate. So that guy who is "only" making jokes to humiliate and demean his wife may eventually become the one who is trying to kill her (or successfully kill her). So if we can do something about the abuse before it escalates, it suddenly doesn't seem so trivial to care about these things.