The possibility and desirability of a truly non-sexist sociaty

[ContraryOpinions]

So with the recent controversy we have been seeing a lot of accusations of sexism and accusations of misuse of the term. In reading the megathread I decided to educate myself on MRA's as I really new very little about the ideology (I had always somewhat dismissed it out of hand). While I didn't agree with some/most of what I read it did get me thinking; could we really have/do we even want a TRULY non-sexist society?

The subject that first got me thinking about it was "male desposability", that is the idea the society deems males to be more disposable. Touted as an example of this is the life boat situation in which the order of places is assumed to be children then women and only last of all men. I found this interesting because, as a man I would (I like to think) follow that ordering. And yet strictly speaking this is a sexist attitude.

Another example that came to mind was reproductive rights. In this we have a undeniable biological difference between the sexes (indeed THE difference). In the name of an egalitarian society, BOTH parent should have equal rights over any children (even unborn). Yet this clearly isn't, and possibly cannot be, the case. If, for example, the mother wants an abortion and the father wants the foetus kept the deciding vote is (rightly) the mothers.

So I guess the point of this post is just to see what everyone thinks, CAN we really eliminate sexism from our world? SHOULD we? Are there some kinds that we need to find a way to learn to live with? Looking forwards to hearing what everyone thinks!

Capacha: Case closed. If only capacha, if only.

 

[JoJo]

Can we eliminate sexism from our world? Probably not entirely. Should we aim to anyway? Definitely.

I don't find your examples particularly compelling. I'd hope most people would agree that nowadays there would be no reason to favour women over men in a 'lifeboat' situation, obviously children (and at-least one parent to accompany them), the disabled and the elderly should be offered assistance first as they're more at risk, otherwise everyone-else should be treated the same.

On your second example, I'd say that's less about the gender and more that usually the women is the one bearing the child (in rare cases, a transgender man is the pregnant one after-all) and so makes a decision on the abortion. If in the future a way for your average man to bear children is found, then I'd expect them to be able to have control over their bodies too.

 

[Zhukov]

The subject that first got me thinking about it was "male desposability", that is the idea the society deems males to be more disposable. Touted as an example of this is the life boat situation in which the order of places is assumed to be children then women and only last of all men. I found this interesting because, as a man I would (I like to think) follow that ordering. And yet strictly speaking this is a sexist attitude.

Actually, this attitude is, or at least was, based in physiology and hard pragmatism.

When it comes to sustaining and growing a given population, well... to put it bluntly, wombs are worth more than sperm. A woman can only get pregnant once every nine months (and of course generally won't get pregnant that often) but one guy can impregnate as many women as he has sex with.

So if you have a population of 100 fertile adults, half male and half female, then you can produce a maximum of 50 babies every nine months (plus twins). If you lose 10 of the females, that drops down to 40 babies. But if you lose 10 of the males then the remainder can take up the slack without much trouble.

Incidentally, this is why many warlike societies practiced polygamy. A lot of fertile males would end up going and getting themselves killed, so the remainder would take extra wives to address the resulting population imbalance.

However, while the lifeboat thing isn't sexist exactly, it is outdated. These days we live in populations so large that losing a few members of either sex doesn't really matter to the big picture.

 

[Vault101]

*looks at user name*
*looks at post count*
*looks at join date*

ayup....looks about right

it depends on where sexism comes from...yes I think there is a LOT that can be eliminated, especially when we as a society stop getting so hung up on gender, nothing you've said really says otherwise

 

[Eamar]

Yeah, what JoJo said.

The VAST majority of feminists these days would argue against prioritising women in a lifeboat situation, as it's something that's born out of patriarchal ideas of women being inherently fragile and in need of extra protection (and of course of men having to be the big, stoical protectors). Those less able to fend for themselves should be prioritised, regardless of gender.

The pregnancy case isn't just about parental rights, it's also about the bodily autonomy of the woman, which I think most people would agree should never, ever be put in the hands of somebody else except in extreme cases like a medical emergency or where the woman is not of sound mind. Saying that a man (or anyone else) should get a say in what a woman does with her own body is one of the biggest issues feminists around the world are fighting against even to this day. If there was some way to choose which parent would carry the child at the point of conception or to magically and non-invasively transport the foetus from one parent to another (Star Trek-style transporters or something), then maybe you'd have a case.

 

[ContraryOpinions]

Yeah, what JoJo said.

The VAST majority of feminists these days would argue against prioritising women in a lifeboat situation, as it's something that's born out of patriarchal ideas of women being inherently fragile and in need of extra protection (and of course of men having to be the big, stoical protectors). Those less able to fend for themselves should be prioritised, regardless of gender.

The pregnancy case isn't just about parental rights, it's also about the bodily autonomy of the woman, which I think most people would agree should never, ever be put in the hands of somebody else except in extreme cases like a medical emergency or where the woman is not of sound mind. Saying that a man (or anyone else) should get a say in what a woman does with her own body is one of the biggest issues feminists around the world are fighting against even to this day. If there was some way to choose which parent would carry the child at the point of conception or to magically and non-invasively transport the foetus from one parent to another (Star Trek-style transporters or something), then maybe you'd have a case.

Sorry I don't think I'v been clear here; I wasn't trying to make a case for the father having a right over what she does with her body, more pointing out the fundamental asymmetry of the fact that he doesn't. This was more for the line of can we have an non-sexist society. I don't really have a point or agenda here, more it occurred to me that there wasn't really any discussion around this and I want to hear what everyone thinks

Also yeah I'v been a lurker for a long while and created this account to make this post. The resent outpouring of vitriol from all sides may have made me slightly paranoid about talking about such a sensitive topic XD

 

[DC_78]

MRA's and SJW's are idiotic. We are advancing as a society and as a gaming community. If some cannot except that (MRA's) or want to force change faster (SJW's) they simply are extremists. Gamers are gamers. We play games. One area where it does not matter if you are stronger, faster, rich, poor, or what type of undies you wear. Sure some are trolls and yell shit (make me a samwich!)& some things said are not cool (Rape/harassment stuff). Yet in gaming there is a simple solution not available in real life. Block them and move on.

As for society as a whole? Equality is awesome, but so is celebrating the differences in the sexes. Do we have some work to go? Yeah. Lets make sure women are paid the same as men in the same field & at the same level. No career should be closed off to a woman that can do the job. Lets not close off or segregate sports to women ( or girls) if they think they can take it, and feel secure in the fact that we can hit them just as hard as the guys. That is equality.

Most of the feminist nonsense is not equality. It is conspiracies, special treatment, and guilt at stuff my gender did/does that has nothing to do with me as an individual. I am sure being a woman is difficult. I have known a few and helped make a small one myself. I tell her that she can do or be anything she puts her mind to, because I believe it.

 

[Eamar]

Sorry I don't think I'v been clear here; I wasn't trying to make a case for the father having a right over what she does with her body, more pointing out the fundamental asymmetry of the fact that he doesn't. This was more for the line of can we have an non-sexist society.

Sure, and my point is that asymmetry in issues like this isn't sexist. It's not sexist that women physically bear children and men don't, it's just biology. Maybe there will come a time when fundamental differences like this can be overcome, and then yes, maybe it'll become a sexism issue at that point, but until then it just isn't.

A society without sexism doesn't mean everyone has to be treated exactly the same in every situation, just that their gender shouldn't come in to how they are treated unless there's a genuine reason for it to be considered, as in the pregnancy case.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The subject that first got me thinking about it was "male desposability", that is the idea the society deems males to be more disposable. Touted as an example of this is the life boat situation in which the order of places is assumed to be children then women and only last of all men. I found this interesting because, as a man I would (I like to think) follow that ordering. And yet strictly speaking this is a sexist attitude.

That scenario is brought up a lot yes...dunno how many men would actually agree to let the women on the lifeboats first, but assuming for the sake of argument that they would...how many (nowdays) would actually ever face that situation? It's very easy for someone to say they'd be all noble and chivalrous if something happened that they are sure almost certainly wouldn't.

Also, eliminating discrimination based on sex...yeah, that's a definite "should".

 

[william12123]

Also yeah I'v been a lurker for a long while and created this account to make this post. The resent outpouring of vitriol from all sides may have made me slightly paranoid about talking about such a sensitive topic XD

Ah man, you have come out at a wonderful time for vitriol. I myself, as you, have read up on some MRA litterature, as well as some feminist litterature, as well as WAY too many forum threads on both. Unfortunately, the MRA groups have a LOT of very fearful, angry and bitter men, which makes it hard to take them seriously. They have probably set back any serious discussion of men's issues back 10 years. There are a few feminists discussing similar issues, but they are rare, and often criticized by other feminists.

BTW, you seem to have difficulty expressing your statements. You might want to link/quote folks that have written on the subject, since it might be more clearly expressed. I believe this might be what you want (though I dont want to put words in your mouth):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#Men.27s_rights

There have been a number of feminists pushing for male reproductive rights, seeing the current status as state enforced coercion in support of traditional gender roles.

Well, hope I dont regret posting here. Have a good and hopefully cheerful day folks, and let's keep dscussion civil.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

The VAST majority of feminists these days would argue against prioritising women in a lifeboat situation, as it's something that's born out of patriarchal ideas of women being inherently fragile and in need of extra protection (and of course of men having to be the big, stoical protectors). Those less able to fend for themselves should be prioritised, regardless of gender.

A very sincere question: how can you say this exactly two posts removed from Zhukov explaining that this practice wasn't born out of "patriarchy" but biology? Unless you believe "patriarchy" somehow precedes the physiological layout of our species...

This is why the concept of "patriarchy" is ridiculous. It's a nebulous (by design) catch-all bogeyman recklessly applied to any bit of reality that is found to be "unpleasant" or "less than optimal" by the speaker. It's the attribution of agency and/or malice to the natural evolution of the species based on the inherent strengths, weaknesses, and complimentary features of each gender. There may absolutely be outdated or undesirably consequences that arise from this evolution, and it's fair to suggest we round those off or iron them out to improve quality of life for everyone as best we can. No good reason to make shit up, though.

The pregnancy case isn't just about parental rights, it's also about the bodily autonomy of the woman, which I think most people would agree should never, ever be put in the hands of somebody else except in extreme cases like a medical emergency or where the woman is not of sound mind. Saying that a man (or anyone else) should get a say in what a woman does with her own body is one of the biggest issues feminists around the world are fighting against even to this day.

So some rights will be different based on immutable biological realities? Interesting.

Following quote from elsewhere in this thread:

Unfortunately, the MRA groups have a LOT of very fearful, angry and bitter men, which makes it hard to take them seriously.

The tip of any spear is almost always constructed of zealots. Most of the hardcore MRA types at this time are scarred men who have been broken by unbalanced divorce settlements, unfair child custody agreements, or the raw hypergamy of an abusive woman. They went looking for answers to their pain and humiliation, and they found like-minded (and similarly hurt) people creating a push-back movement. Naturally, their dialogue and behavior is raw, aggressive, even offensive. That's what happens when you get pushed around long enough - eventually you lash out. Doesn't make it right, obviously, but I think it's rather cruel to imagine a good number of these men aren't legitimately upset over being sincerely wronged by either a court system that favors women or a culture that fails to hold women accountable. The discourse should improve with time. Remember what some of the earliest radfems were like? They advocated for insane anti-male policies and, frankly, open gender war. Good thing we didn't completely ignore the valid and important parts of that movement forever, huh?

Random bonus question: honestly, can a culture simultaneously deny women agency/freedom *and* hold them accountable for the behaviors they supposedly aren't even choosing to commit? Being the "kept" sex has advantages and disadvantages, just like being the "disposable" sex. I'm not sure it will ever be possible to break down those barriers completely. Not while men and women are biologically so different and fulfilling such radically different reproductive functions. Still, it absolutely makes sense to, as I like to say, "round off the edges" and generally fuzz the entire picture such that men and women alike have the autonomy to pursue the sort of lives they want to live - and to succeed with a not unreasonable amount of effort and dedication. I think that's the best we can and should hope for, and I don't think we're honestly that far off. Unless people want to get seriously draconian with our social engineering, and that's never been a very good idea in the past.

 

[Elfgore]

I mean, we should be trying to remove sexism from our world. It's a bad thing. Do I think it will happen. Not any time soon. I mean they're are some goals of feminist that just seem impossible for me see happening, short of building a brainwashing machine. Things like the pay gap, you can fix. It can be monitored and then enforced by a government. Now, things such as more rape convictions, is pretty much impossible. Coming from an U.S. point of view, you'd have to change how our entire justice system works to get higher convictions. Some others such as hiring discrimination, harassment, rape, etc. I'd go into more detail, but time forbids right now.

I'm not saying "Stop complaining and get back in the damn kitchen!", I'm sure some might take it like this. But it's going to take quite a while to reach the other side of the hill and it's going to be a tough climb as well.

 

[Eamar]

A very sincere question: how can you say this exactly two posts removed from Zhukov explaining that this practice wasn't born out of "patriarchy" but biology? Unless you believe "patriarchy" somehow precedes the physiological layout of our species...

Because the specific example of lifeboat protocol came about in a time when the biological factors described by Zhukov were already obsolete. As Zhukov said, the biological factors become irrelevant once we live in societies where the loss of a few individual women (or men) is no longer going to greatly impact the reproductive abilities of said society. Choosing to continue behaviours after they are no longer necessary is a social thing, hence patriarchy.

This is why the concept of "patriarchy" is ridiculous. It's a nebulous (by design) catch-all bogeyman recklessly applied to any bit of reality that is found to be "unpleasant" or "less than optimal" by the speaker. It's the attribution of agency and/or malice to the natural evolution of the species based on the inherent strengths, weaknesses, and complimentary features of each gender. There may absolutely be outdated or undesirably consequences that arise from this evolution, and it's fair to suggest we round those off or iron them out to improve quality of life for everyone as best we can. No good reason to make shit up, though.

I don't think you understand what patriarchy is. We live in a society where, through no current necessity, it is generally an advantage to be male. That is what patriarchy means. People may misuse the term from time to time, sure, but that doesn't invalidate it.

Also be aware that "evo-psych" is highly disputed and generally massively misunderstood/overused by the general population. Prioritising women over men in a lifeboat-type situation is not "hard-wired" into anyone's genome, it's a behaviour that was at one time found to be useful and therefore encouraged. That's not the same as saying "it's all biological".

So some rights will be different based on immutable biological realities? Interesting.

Really very few rights, but... yes? Is this really particularly controversial?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Also be aware that "evo-psych" is highly disputed and generally massively misunderstood/overused by the general population.

Funny, I feel the exact same way about feminism.

I don't think you understand what patriarchy is. We live in a society where, through no current necessity, it is generally an advantage to be male. That is what patriarchy means. People may misuse the term from time to time, sure, but that doesn't invalidate it.

Who defines what is advantageous? Womens' studies departments?

Is it advantageous to be less educated, the vast majority of the homeless, the overwhelming majority of the at-risk workforce? Is it advantageous to have almost literally no reproductive rights? Is it advantageous to receive harsher sentences for the same crimes?

Do we engage in rampant fallacy by composition, pointing to the small handful of elite, wealthy men who "run the show" and proclaiming "see, see how great men have it!"?

Prioritising women over men in a lifeboat-type situation is not "hard-wired" into anyone's genome, it's a behaviour that was at one time found to be useful and therefore encouraged. That's not the same as saying "it's all biological".

Weird that so many of our behaviors arise from raw biological differences, and that there would then be some issues and perhaps failures when we try to abolish virtually all of those differentiated behaviors while the biological differences remain entirely intact.

So some rights will be different based on immutable biological realities? Interesting.

Really very few rights, but... yes? Is this really particularly controversial?

I find that rights based on biological differences are overwhelmingly okay when they favor women and entirely unacceptable (as well as in desperate need of destruction) when they favor men. Purely anecdotal, of course.

This really isn't worth discussing, is it? You'll parrot your talking points, I'll parrot mine, and the end result is what we knew from the start: different views of the world.

For my part, I'm enjoying the current push-back. Ideologies should never go unchallenged, and feminism is no exception.

 

[Lieju]

The VAST majority of feminists these days would argue against prioritising women in a lifeboat situation, as it's something that's born out of patriarchal ideas of women being inherently fragile and in need of extra protection (and of course of men having to be the big, stoical protectors). Those less able to fend for themselves should be prioritised, regardless of gender.

A very sincere question: how can you say this exactly two posts removed from Zhukov explaining that this practice wasn't born out of "patriarchy" but biology? Unless you believe "patriarchy" somehow precedes the physiological layout of our species...

Erm, didn't the practise used to be that men were prioritized in situations like this?
Because they wanted people who were physically strong and hopefully sailors?
It was made famous by the actions of the crew of HMS Birkenhead, where they did do that, but in that case I'd argue it was the right thing to do.
It was a troop ship, and the women on board would have been the families of the soldiers, so it was the case of civilians being put first.
Historically general survival rates have been in favour of adult males rather than women or children.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/01/sinking-myths-men-actually-most-likely-to-survive-shipwrecks-not-women/

Women in quite a lot of societies haven't been protected.
Take the current ebola epidemic for example, which kills more women than men, because women are the ones treating the sick and thus more likely to get sick themselves...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/20/why_are_so_many_women_dying_from_ebola

If it's human nature to protect the women, shouldn't men take these kinds of caring roles?
Instead, it's women who are put into risk.

It seems to me historically men have been most interested in protecting women only when the threat is another man who might go and have sex with their woman.
(And when they got to do cool stuff like showing how tough they are by beating up a guy. But who wants to put themselves into risk to treat icky sick people? Let the women do that risky stuff.)

 

[DANEgerous]

To be frank I would like a world where gender doe not even exist. Nothing is inherently masculine nor feminine these are just rolls we assign on some arbitrary whim and we would likely benefit from knowing this. To me gender is... kind of dumb, useful yes but still overall rather pointless. I am not with the whole "Do not label me" crowd but if you go back to when Facebook added like 200 gender options we start to get into arbitrary bullshit where the genders so so varied they may as well be your own persona with every person have their own gender.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

It seems to me historically men have been most interested in protecting women only when the threat is another man who might go and have sex with their woman.

Or when that woman's reproductive capacity (or ability to be sexed) might be otherwise unnaturally lost. That's the crux of our species's survival. We've stretched all kinds of beautiful and valid cultural and societal structures over the top of it, too. I think it's possible to respect (all at once) the underlying reasons, the historical basis, and the pretty constructs overlying these things today.

Very interesting stuff there, btw. Worthy of more reading! I wonder if a society or a culture that permits women to perish in large numbers might also be disadvantaged in terms of long-term fitness/survival. Finding evidence that runs contrary to certain widespread norms might not serve to disprove them if those exceptions hail from cultures that haven't exactly prospered.

 

[Eamar]

To be frank I would like a world where gender doe not even exist. Nothing is inherently masculine nor feminine these are just rolls we assign on some arbitrary whim and we would likely benefit from knowing this. To me gender is... kind of dumb, useful yes but still overall rather pointless. I am not with the whole "Do not label me" crowd but if you go back to when Facebook added like 200 gender options we start to get into arbitrary bullshit where the genders so so varied they may as well be your own persona with every person have their own gender.

This actually sums up my ideal situation too. Biological sex isn't going away any time soon, but gender? Is there really any reason to hang on to that any more? Dictating what people should like/do/wear, how they should act, what they should look like based purely on their genitals? Personally, I don't think so.

 

[Gorrath]

I don't think you understand what patriarchy is. We live in a society where, through no current necessity, it is generally an advantage to be male. That is what patriarchy means. People may misuse the term from time to time, sure, but that doesn't invalidate it.

I would also very much like to challenge this assertion. How do we evaluate the truth of the claim that it is generally more advantageous to be male? If we examine the justice system, we certainly find a great deal of bias against men there, and not just in the commonly talked about family court, but in criminal court as well.

Depending on which career we examine, men may have a harder time than women either getting a position or being promoted. The reverse is also true, where certain careers favor men over women. As we understand, this is due to informal adherence to traditional gender roles and a conscious or unconscious desire to propagate those roles by both men and women. The highest paying careers tend to favor men, but most men don't hold those positions either, and so do not gain any benefit from this (admittedly unfair) situation.

There is also the situation with the pay gap, though it is my understanding that only 3-5% of this gap is unaccounted for and may or may not actually be related to practiced or casual sexism. In any case, it is fair to say that the pay gap is worth addressing as a disadvantage to women, we simply can't tell how much of a factor it actually is.

It is my understanding that men are more likely to die in the workplace, be homeless, and be almost as likely to suffer domestic abuse as women while simultaneously having to fear more social and even criminal retribution for reporting it than women.

I bring all of this up not to assert that males don't have it better than females in society, but to ask you to defend your assertion that they do. Do we even have a useful way of determining an answer to the question of which sex "has it better?" If we do, what is it? If we don't, how do you assert that one or the other sex does have it generally better?