The possibility and desirability of a truly non-sexist sociaty

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
thaluikhain said:
ContraryOpinions said:
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".
There was a study a few years ago that concluded that "Women and children first" was little more than an urban myth and that men have had way better survival chances historically. In fact, the only time "Women and children first" seems to have been actually used was on the Titanic. So yeah, that argument is not only uncompelling, but based on a factoid.

Source here [http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/chatter/study-every-man-himself-sinking-ships]
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Gorrath said:
Eamar said:
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?
Let's do this quick and dirty:
Who make the most money in society?
Who have the most influential and powerful positions in society?
Who are most prominently featured in a societies expressions of culture (art, movies, music etc.)?
Who are the most prominent creators of culture in a society?
Who have the most control over media in society?
Who are the most normative in a society?

I'll give you the answer to all of the above in Europe and North America: White men. I would like to broaden my argument with a longer explanation of intersectionality and kyriarchy, but I am tired after a 10 hour work day and I don't want to waste what energy I have left on a discussion that will lead nowhere. So if you are truly interested in understanding the nuance, let me know. Otherwise I'll just let it slide.
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
Eamar said:
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.
Why wouldn't something as clear and crucial as the biological differences between the sexes also manifest as a number of predispositions among the members of those sexes towards certain affinities, behaviors, attitudes, etc.? Aren't these what comprise gender? At some point, aren't we watching rain fall in a pond and shaking our fists at the ripples?

I say give people options and reasonable (but not excessive) access to the opportunities and resources they need to pursue the sorts of lives they want to live. Then accept the choices they make - even when things don't end up as representative or even as some imagine or wish they should be. If a little girl wants to play with a truck, let her play with a truck. At the same time, if 66 out of a 100 little girls choose to play with dolls, don't force 16 of them to play with trucks just to engineer the "correct" ratio.
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
5
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
FieryTrainwreck said:
Why wouldn't something as clear and crucial as the biological differences between the sexes also manifest as a number of predispositions among the members of those sexes towards certain affinities, behaviors, attitudes, etc.? Aren't these what comprise gender? At some point, aren't we watching rain fall in a pond and shaking our fists at the ripples?

I say give people options and reasonable (but not excessive) access to the opportunities and resources they need to pursue the sorts of lives they want to live. Then accept the choices they make - even when things don't end up as representative or even as some imagine or wish they should be. If a little girl wants to play with a truck, let her play with a truck. At the same time, if 66 out of a 100 little girls choose to play with dolls, don't force 16 of them to play with trucks just to engineer the "correct" ratio.
You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I've never suggested there's a "correct" ratio for anything, just that every individual should be free to enjoy their own preferences without judgement or the enforcement of the idea certain things are inherently "masculine" or "feminine", that certain things are "normal" for little boys but not for girls (and vice versa). Certain things may well be more favoured by one sex or the other, but that doesn't mean it's helpful to label them as "girl things" and "boy things" and act surprised or even hostile when someone doesn't want to go along with that system.

Basically though, I think we agree.
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
Gethsemani said:
Gorrath said:
Eamar said:
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?
Let's do this quick and dirty:
Who make the most money in society?
Who have the most influential and powerful positions in society?
Who are most prominently featured in a societies expressions of culture (art, movies, music etc.)?
Who are the most prominent creators of culture in a society?
Who have the most control over media in society?
Who are the most normative in a society?

I'll give you the answer to all of the above in Europe and North America: White men. I would like to broaden my argument with a longer explanation of intersectionality and kyriarchy, but I am tired after a 10 hour work day and I don't want to waste what energy I have left on a discussion that will lead nowhere. So if you are truly interested in understanding the nuance, let me know. Otherwise I'll just let it slide.
Fallacy by composition. You think all the white men meet up for high fives at the end of the day? You think a poor white male laborer busting his ass to barely scrape by has anything to do with the small handful of rich white men who effectively run the world?

Have you ever spoken with a billionaire personally? Neither have I. But one of my best friends has. He's eaten dinner with a billionaire's family. And how did my friend, the straight, white, middle-class-ish man, feel about said billionaire?

"He's like another species. The way he talks and thinks, the way he views other people, it's like a god discussing the tiny lives of men."

When you reach a certain level of power, influence, and wealth, those very characteristics become the only bits of you that matter. There are obviously subtle, nuanced differences in advantage/disadvantage based on gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., but those differences matter less and less relative to the one overriding determination of privilege: actual raw privilege. The kind you buy or take through sheer power. Everything else is table scraps, and studying/harping on it is, in my opinion, silly.

Also silly: assuming that anyone who disagrees with what you're saying hasn't read about what you're saying. I'm intimately familiar with the concepts of intersectionality/kyiarchy. That's why I criticism them.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,977
348
88
Country
US
If you are interested in MRA topics (especially if you're interested in arguments on things like disposability, threat narratives, and positive identities), I'd recommend a trip over to YouTube and checking out a couple of channels. GirlWritesWhat is usually the most popular one to suggest, but I'd suggest Alison Tieman who I think does a much better job at presentation. Honey Badger Radio is a podcast on those sorts of things, and they even covered the whole Zoe Quinn mess.

ContraryOpinions said:
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.
It's the classic example, but not the most likely example in a modern context (which is the most common argument against it, because they argue against the example rather than the concept).

Another classic example is Selective Service. The thing about Selective Service that they always seem to miss is that, even if we assume that conscription being political suicide in a ripple from Vietnam carries forward indefinitely, and accordingly the risk of anyone ever for the rest of US history being drafted is infinitesimally small, we still require young men to sign a document for the specific purpose of giving the government the right to send them to die should it ever see fit in order to receive the same legal rights and benefits that women are provided with no strings attached. Selective Service is literally "because you are a man, you have to agree that your life is forfeit if we want it (even though we probably won't) if you want the same rights and benefits as a woman."

More realistically, how about an experiment. Watch the network news for a few nights or check your local paper/local paper's website. Note how and when explicitly gendered words are used. Note the trend not to specify female-ness of perpetrators or male-ness of victims, unless they are actually named. Male perpetrators and female victims are more readily identified as such. Bad things are seen as worse when they happen to women, and bad things aren't seen as being as bad when they're done by women (and this shows valuing the lives of women over those of men). There was a study done wherein a survey was sent to a sample of psychologists that asked if specific behaviors were considered abusive, with male-on-female and female-on-male versions sent at different times -- every behavior was considered abusive by a larger percentage of completed surveys when it was a male perpetrator and a female victim than vice versa.

This is related to agency and how we perceive it -- namely that we will assign men agency in excess of what they actually have, and women agency beneath what they actually have. Which is why, for example, if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex then it can be argued that he raped her, because her being drunk means she couldn't consent (intoxication robs her of all agency, minimizing her agency) but his being drunk doesn't remove his responsibility (his being drunk doesn't change his agency, to maximize his potential agency).

Another example regarding social perception -- there's a blog out there that exists for shaming men for sitting with their legs too far apart on public transit ("too far" seemingly meaning shoulder width or wider), deeming it a patriarchal display of dominance by taking up excessive space, or something to that effect. A woman sitting with bags in adjacent seats on both sides, to keep anyone from sitting beside her without her first being able to filter them? Suddenly that "taking up space" thing isn't some kind of dominance display and is instead OK, even reasonable.

Another unrelated situation is when women enter into male-dominant spaces and when men enter into female-dominant spaces. In the former case, we expect men to change the space to prevent the woman from being uncomfortable, in the latter we expect the man to change to prevent the women from being uncomfortable.

To hook into the whole Quinnspiracy thing, people have said that it wouldn't be this big if Zoe were a guy. Personally, if we gender flipped that whole mess, I expect we'd have had news articles about how Male!Zoe was a rapist and abusive and how Female!Eron was brave for coming forward about what they'd endured posted on the day thezoepost went up. After all, "a friend of a friend said you raped her" was enough to get people demanding we boycott Cards Against Humanity.

ContraryOpinions said:
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.
There's a deep well of things related to reproductive rights and father's rights that could be gotten at.

For example, it's a common MRA position to push for a rebuttable presumption of shared custody -- that is, that family courts be required to start from the position that both parents have an equal right to custody, which must be challenged to move from that position. One of the largest feminist lobby groups in the US (the National Organization for Women) has consistently fought against that.

Another common MRA position regarding reproductive rights is that, since they can't be equal due to biology, they should be as equitable as possible. This usually involves arguing for an option for nullifying all parental rights and responsibilities (everything, essentially a legal "is not the father") under a limited time range (usually one shorter than the limit for abortion to allow the mother to take it into account when considering abortion) or a fixed number of days after being made aware of paternity (specifically to prevent his being denied the option by being kept ignorant of pregnancy until it's too late). This is usually argued under the position that women have the right to terminate all rights and responsibilities of parenthood through abortion, adoption, or "safe harbor" abandonment without the father's knowledge or consent and accordingly something similar should be available to men. Some proposals go so far as to argue that the man being equally responsible for the pregnancy occurring also holds a responsibility to share in the burden of the pregnancy however it is resolved, and accordingly should be required to shoulder a share of the woman's expenses in dealing with the pregnancy however she chooses, but this is less common to even bring up.
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
Eamar said:
You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I've never suggested there's a "correct" ratio for anything, just that every individual should be free to enjoy their own preferences without judgement or the enforcement of the idea certain things are inherently "masculine" or "feminine", that certain things are "normal" for little boys but not for girls (and vice versa). Certain things may well be more favoured by one sex or the other, but that doesn't mean it's helpful to label them as "girl things" and "boy things" and act surprised or even hostile when someone doesn't want to go along with that system.

Basically though, I think we agree.
Eh, maybe. A very important bit for me is the "reasonable" qualifier when it comes to access and opportunity. Black men and women were underrepresented in universities in the 60s. Women are underrepresented in the field of engineering today. These two things are similar on their faces but worlds apart in terms of real-world implications. A black man attempting to obtain higher education in the 60s dealt with obstacles and hardships exponentially greater than those facing a prospective female engineer in 2014. This is common sense; I promise I'm not trying to be condescending towards you. For me, I think there's a point where the amount of time and money and attention spent on a given instance of "unfair advantage" can drastically outpace and dwarf the actual scope of the unfairness. That might sound like a cop-out, even, a "close enough, let's go home for the day" attitude, but it's really more about pragmatism. I think the idea that we'll ever get it "perfect" is laughable, so "close enough" is honestly the realistic and sensible goal. Bringing it all home as best I can: I don't think female engineers face obstacles or hardships requiring unreasonable amounts of dedication or perseverance. They have reasonable access to the career they desire, and that should be the ultimate goal.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Depends on how you define sexism.

Women and men aren't physically equal, so there'll always be a situation where one is incapable of performing at the level of the other. Such cases include (famously) childbirth, or the more extreme fitness requirements of the elite military.

If you mean socially, depending on where you're living, we're already doing a fantastic job and are heading in the right direction, and given time will have beaten it.

Someone people will always hate, but it depends if you take one person's hatred as being a "sexist" society. Do we live in an anti-Semitic society? Because there are plenty of people who hate jews still.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Gethsemani said:
Gorrath said:
Eamar said:
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?
Let's do this quick and dirty:
Who make the most money in society?
Who have the most influential and powerful positions in society?
Who are most prominently featured in a societies expressions of culture (art, movies, music etc.)?
Who are the most prominent creators of culture in a society?
Who have the most control over media in society?
Who are the most normative in a society?

I'll give you the answer to all of the above in Europe and North America: White men. I would like to broaden my argument with a longer explanation of intersectionality and kyriarchy, but I am tired after a 10 hour work day and I don't want to waste what energy I have left on a discussion that will lead nowhere. So if you are truly interested in understanding the nuance, let me know. Otherwise I'll just let it slide.
I'm a person with an interest in the truth, though not without my own bias of course. I've no interest in pressuring you into a debate/discussion you don't want to have and so I bear no ill will toward anyone who decides that an internet argument isn't worth their time. That said, allow me a response.

Who make the most money in society: A tiny percentage of the population actually. And they do tend to be white men, but this fact does nothing significant for men who don't belong to that tiny percentage. The wage gap argument is the more solid one here, though as I noted before it is a relatively small gap and we can't account for all factors as to why that gap exists. We also cannot dismiss the wage gap problem out of hand. It is notable and we should strive to understand and eliminate it if possible.

On the other hand, while many women can choose to not pursue a career at all, due to society's outlook on men, they are not afforded the same consideration. There is considerably more pressure on men to get, maintain and be successful in a career. Men are, possibly unfairly, judged by the contents of their wallets over that of their character, by both men, women, and society at large. This is not a problem that appears to be nearly as big a problem for women.

Who have the most influential and powerful positions: As with the above, many of those positions are held by white men. And as with the above, that fact often does little or nothing at all to help most men. Does the fact that police are mostly comprised of men mean that men are treated better than women by police? How about courts? Are men's votes more or less sought after than women's votes? Having those positions may make the men who hold them have great advantage, but does that translate to advantage for most men? This is not to suggest that there is no benefit to being a man, but whether the way society works as a whole is more advantageous for MOST men, not the few who enjoy the greatest privilege, is the crux of the question.

Who are most prominently featured in cultural expression: I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. Are we talking about featuring the artist or the artist's works? If you mean the former, I've no idea. I'm not sure what the breakdown of success/prominence is between men and women and their art. If you mean the latter, then we've got problems all over the place because of conscious or unconscious adherence to traditional gender roles in art. Women tend to be sexually objectified, men tend to be made into emotionless drones or else fall into problems with the "disposable man" trope. Male characters tend to be allowed greater body-type variance than female characters due to the different ways in which male and female characters are objectified. We could spend ages on this alone if we wanted, so I'll move on.

Who are the most prominent creators of culture: Ahh, this I think clears up your former question. Again, I honestly don't know. Female and male stars exist in music and movies, but I couldn't even begin to tell you if there's a bias in how culturally relevant they are. As our culture stands today, either men or women can achieve mega-success in whatever their chosen field of artistic expression. But as to which tends to be favored, if either, I could use some education on this.

Who have most control over media and society: Is this a question in relation to who holds the positions within the media industries, or who shapes the narrative? It seems that soft control coming via popular opinion and discourse currently favors a liberal viewpoint over the conservative, but neither viewpoint is inherently a gendered one. If you are asking who holds positions of power in media and society as opposed to the soft control of the people, then it is again, white men, but again this does not inherently demonstrate that most men benefit from this. By way of example, media and society seem often preoccupied with women facing inequality while any inequality men face tends to be ignored, downplayed or outright called myth no matter what statistics are brought to bare. The whole issue of men's rights is considered by many to be a joke, where as women's rights is (and rightfully so) serious business.

Who is the most normative: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

I'd also be happy to explore intersectionality and kyriarchy. Kyriarchy in particular factors into some of my own arguments, were by man or woman may find their sex/gender/race or other factors to serve their own oppression in some cases and act as as a form privilege in others. We could extend our discussion to include other factors such as race, but I think we'll have a hard enough time with just gender issues given our format for discussion. Also, please note: I consider myself an egalitarian, a feminist and an MRA, or else none of those things depending on how people want to define those things.

Suffice it to say, I agree with and wholly support the notions that gender/sex/race ect. serve as disadvantages for people and I think that the social constructs that serve oppression are unfit for a fair and just society.
 

briankoontz

New member
May 17, 2010
656
0
0
Anti-sexism isn't about treating the two genders as if they are identical - all differences should be respected or otherwise the situation is insane.

Children are the most valuable humans on the planet because they have the longest time remaining to live. That's why they are saved while adults die if that's the best outcome that can happen. Likewise, middle-aged humans live while elderly humans die if those are the constraints. That's not "ageism", that's just rational reality.

Historically men do dangerous things while women are protected not because men have more powerful muscles, although that sometimes is a secondary reason. The primary reason is because women have functional uteri (plural of uterus) and therefore their bodies are more valuable for human production than men's bodies. Kill a child-bearing age woman and no children will come from her - kill a man and another man can just impregnate a protected woman.

This is why the stereotype exists of men protecting women. It's not because men are "noble" or "strong" - it's because their lives are less valuable. Women don't protect men as often in dangerous situations not because women are cowardly or weak, but because more is lost if they die or are injured.

This is rational reality, not sexism. Anti-sexism is not about eliminating differences between the genders, but about mutual respect for both genders and making sure rationality is followed rather than abusive or oppressive situations.

A woman who in order to seem "strong" puts herself into dangerous situations in order to "be as brave as a man" is closer to insanity than egalitarianism. If men had uteri they would protect themselves and be "unmanly". There's nothing wrong with acting as if you have a uterus *when you have a uterus*.

This recent trend of applauding women for choosing to enter into dangerous situations, calling them "strong" ahd holding them up as a role model for girls is, again, closer to insanity than egalitarianism. The solution is not for women to prove their bravery by being macho, the solution is for all human beings to be respected for who they are, and to recognize the differences that exist between people and the rational outcomes of those differences.

It's perfectly ok for a woman who doesn't much care about having children to choose to enter into dangerous situations - we obviously don't need every woman to bear children to maintain the species. But we shouldn't expect them to have something to prove by it, and we shouldn't hold it up as the gold standard for womanhood. There's nothing wrong with being self-protective and raising children if that's what a woman wants.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
briankoontz said:
This is why the stereotype exists of men protecting women. It's not because men are "noble" or "strong" - it's because their lives are less valuable. Women don't protect men as often in dangerous situations not because women are cowardly or weak, but because more is lost if they die or are injured.

This is rational reality, not sexism.
You'll note that woman can't currently get pregnant without men.

Now, you could talk of a hypothetical society, where polygamy made up for more men dying then women, but that is not the case in current western societies.
 

Knight Captain Kerr

New member
May 27, 2011
1,283
0
0
Yes getting rid of sexism is something we can and should do. I don't think we'll ever totally get rid of it but I do hope it reaches the stage where sexists are in the vast minority. Both women and men suffer from sexism, both are bad. Gender roles can piss off and so can transphobia.

I find a problem talking about sexism though is different interpretations of what is and isn't sexist. As an example I think polygamy is fine as long is everyone involved knows about it and everyone involved is cool with it. There is a difference between polygamy and cheating. I don't think polygamy would be for me but just because I don't want to do it doesn't others shouldn't be able to. It can be sexist but it isn't inherently so. However some people believe certain kinds of polygamous relationships (for example one man, two women) are inherently sexist. Same comes up with other issues, pornography, prostitution, etc.

Hopefully we can eventually reach an Eclipse Phase style future (preferably without the robots infected with an alien virus who almost kill everyone) where peoples' sex and gender don't matter, you can change your sex easily enough, change bodies like you change cars and artificial wombs can create new children without the need for someone actually getting pregnant. On the artificial womb front things seem to be going pretty well.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,467
3,005
118
JoJo and Zhukov nailed it. I love these fellowpeoplepersons. Always the voice of reason.

Non-sexist society: desirable, unlikely. But your examples aren't strictly speaking born out of sexism. The boat thing was born out of pragmatism and today it is an outdated practice. I don't know about abortion - I'm for it, and ideally both parents should compromise, but the swing vote should go for the pregnant person.
 

Rblade

New member
Mar 1, 2010
497
0
0
depends on your defenition. If it would mean that you couldn't make sexist jokes, then no, because I think that without a little bit of shock all humor falls flat. And humor is vital. Outside of the free speech things I believe it is technically possible even though I think you will always be able to relate that slight bit better to people of your own sex. And there is the fringe cases like child rearing that will be cause for some differences.
 

Tamayo

New member
May 16, 2014
40
0
0
ContraryOpinions said:
could we really have/do we even want a TRULY non-sexist society
What do you mean by "sexism" here? Let me suggest some possibilities, from [link]en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism:[/link]

The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender.
So, in the spirit of your question, could we have a society wherein it was not possible to have such a belief?

Mmmmaybe---but only by force.

Would it be good if such a belief were not possible?

Absolutely not. Coercive thought control is abhorrent, however that coercion is accomplished. The freedoms of thought, expression, and association are more important than equality of opportunity, though it seems to me that equality of opportunity is a very big part of freedom of association---does it not, to you?

Different treatment or discrimination based on a difference of sex or gender.
Could we have a society in which this does not happen?

No, because males cannot bear children. But yes, aside from that one caveat; consider the (granted, imaginary) society of the traditionalist dwarfs of Terry Pratchett's Discworld. The sex of any given dwarf in that society is kept secret and all dwarfs have the same rights and responsibilities as all other dwarfs. As this society has been imagined, it is at least conceivable and thus logically possible. I admit that "logical possibility" and "plausibility" are not really related.

Would it be good if we did not discriminate our actions and attitudes toward a person based on that person's gender?

I don't know, but I'd sure like to find out. The question might become: how could we implement such equality without losing important good parts of our admittedly unequal society as it stands? My own opinion on that last question is---it's possible and feasible and anyone standing in the way of working toward it has ulterior motives.

Disadvantage or unequal opportunity arising from the cultural dominance of one gender over the other.
Is a society without unequal opportunity arising from cultural dominance possible?

Again, I don't know for certain, but I am fairly confident that it is. Evidence supports the idea that it is; things are better for people of both sexes now that opportunities for both are [em]more[/em] equal than they were in past societies, and it is heartening to think that movement toward yet more equality does continue. I think that the expression of denying that equality of opportunity is possible again strongly implies ulterior motive.

Is it desirable to have equal opportunity?

I find it so. I can give what I am convinced are very strong economic and ethical arguments for that, but I suspect you already know them. Actually, if you wanted to disagree with me on this matter, I'd insist you tell [em]me[/em] why.

Promotion or expectation or assumption of people to behave in accordance with or deviate from a gender role.
Is a society without this expectation possible?

For once, I answer absolutely affirmatively, because I know that there exist many societies each with different gender roles for people, and those gender roles differ between the different societies one from the next. In another reversal, I will admit that implementing such an ungendered society would be difficult. The gendering of toys for children, for example, is not only typically promoted by the children's parents but by the children's peers. Forcing a boy to play with a doll or a girl to play with a truck is neither ethical nor likely efficaceous. We have seen, however, that lots of girls like to play all kinds of video games when they are allowed to do so away from the influence of boys or disapproving parents, so it is at least plausible.

Is it desirable to have no such expectations?

As long as you consider freedom itself a desirable quality, it is. A person who lives in a society that does not expect him or her to hew to certain patterns of behaviour arbitrarily imposed according to his or her sex is freer in that aspect than a person who does not live in such a society.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Frankly I have to agree with JoJo and Zhukov in that once a population flourishes with a large population, usually once a civilization moves past the hunter gatherer stage, the whole "Keeping women alive to reproduce" thing loses edge.

And yes, we should move to remove sexism. We may not succeed in completely destroying it, but we should root it out and cripple it to the best of our ability. Unless it's a type of sexism that hurts no one and can be beneficial. Like urinals in the men's bathroom and not the women's.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Verlander said:
Women and men aren't physically equal, so there'll always be a situation where one is incapable of performing at the level of the other. Such cases include (famously) childbirth, or the more extreme fitness requirements of the elite military.
Just for the record, this is the case only if you take the average man and the average woman. There's women that exceed men in certain capacities that men are on average better at and men who exceed women in certain capacities that women are on average better at.

This is done on averages, which is why things like the military should allow women into all positions, as well as ending gender segregation in all other fields. Because you don't fit the phsyical fitness requirements solely for being a man or a woman, you have individual fitness requirements for everybody. To use the logic that men are stronger than women, which is already a fallacy, it means that a asthmatic, anemic 18-year old boy that weighs 80 pounds should be accepted into the special forces where 160-pound woman in peak physical condition with excellent training. Which would you rather take into battle with you?
You misunderstand me. I'm referring to elite roles within the military that require you to complete physical tests, one of which is completion of an obstacle course in a set time and method. Everyone, male and female, can apply to the position, but no women have ever passed the test. It's been deemed too physically demanding, and potentially damaging to their reproductive organs. They're free to try the course, but no woman has succeeded.

Now, 99% of men fail too, so I'm in no way saying that "men r bettur thn wimen" like a stupid sexist droolie, but I am recognising that, physically, we are not equal. Equal means "the same as", and we are not the same as each other. No one is better than the other for this, but it's still a distinction.

Socially, politically and legally, human should equal human, in my personal opinion, with no distinction for age, ethnicity or gender. When it comes down to physical attributes, averaged or overall, we should be comfortable identifying that there is a difference, and celebrate that.