Burningbird: No matter what you call it, it's sexism

August 30, 2002

No matter what you call it, it's sexism

Dictionary.com - Sexism: attitudes, conditions, or behavior promoting stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Merriam-Webster Online - Sexism: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

With regards to the Say what post and the one on Doc screwed the Pooch, I said specific statements were sexist, or more properly, examples of sexism. Why? Because they made generalized statements of social behavior based on sex.

Cute, funny, offhand, stupid, silly, friendly, joking, brilliant, clever, demeaning, exploring, explaining -- whatever the basis of the statement, when there is generalization based on sex, this promotes stereotypes in social roles.

Two statements:

"...business books are bodice-rippers for men"

"...Oh: when you get tired of all the male kinda shit that seems to comprise 5/4 of the blog world (techblog or warblog... now there's a sexy selection)..."

Someone take these statements and the definitions I provided, and you, specifically, tell me where I'm wrong in saying that both are examples of sexism.

Change in society doesn't happen through law or proclamation -- it's based on changing social attitudes and behaviors, gradually, over time. It's each of us becoming aware that we are, directly or indirectly, supporting stereotypes based on race or religion or sex: in our jobs, in our homes and neighborhoods, in our schools, and in our language.

Doc and Halley are terrific people. From their writings they both come across as fun loving, generous, kind, and intelligent. Neither comes across as sexist, and I don't believe either is. However, no matter how likable they are, no matter how popular they are, no matter how respected they are, they do not get a "get out of being called on what you write " free card. I sure don't expect one for myself though in the past I have felt picked on a time or two for my writing, and have become correspondingly whiney in response (not something I'm particularly proud of).

What do we keep telling the major publications about weblogging? That weblogging is interactive, that we catch the mainstream press whenever it's out of line, incorrect, or irresponsible. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there are few mainstream press publications that would have allowed either of Doc's or Halley's statements to pass the editor's desk. And not because the editors are practicing censorship, but because neither statement is strong enough on its own to justify the sexism implicit in the words.

To explain that last statement, let me use an extreme example. Let me tell you a word: nigger. Chances are when you read this, you recoiled in disgust. Just the use of this word is enough to get books pulled from school shelves and people fired or even prosecuted. Me using it in this weblog posting has probably angered many of you.

Yet as late as a few decades ago, this word was in popular use in much of this country -- used freely at work, in our press, in our schools. It took years of awareness and effort, and some people dying, to finally change the social norms enough to make the use of 'nigger', and what it implied, reprehensible.

However, as demeaning as this term is, its use in some publications is still acceptable. Why? Because the term is an integral part of telling a story that, ultimately highlights the incorrectness of the environment that fosters this term. Thus, using 'nigger' casually in conversation at work is socially unacceptable; however, the use of the term in the book To Kill a Mockingbird is an essential component of the book's story, a story which ultimately demonstrates the imbalance of justice for blacks in the white dominated South in the time this book is set.

<edit >The point to this example is that if you're going to use a term that's racist or sexist (or bigoted), then at least make the use worth something rather than some offhand throwaway remark.</edit>

As I said, that was an extreme example. The context of Doc and Halley's postings makes their statements innocuous. This is weblogging, for goodness sake! They're joking around with friends, having a good time. Yes, I should lighten up, laugh the statements off, or ignore them at the least. And if I lived in a society where 50% of the politicians, CEO's, and technology workers, and so on were women, I would most likely have a really good chuckle right about now. However, I don't live in this society. In fact, if I remember my numbers correctly, we're lucky to meet the 20% mark for upper corporate or government positions.

I'm beating a dead posting here. I'm trying to make a point many people won't get because I'm making it based on the writing of two people who are well liked and respected in the weblogging community. Two people none of us believes is sexist. If I'm going to make a point about sexism, why don't I find the real sexists in the weblogging community, and go after them?

Because change in a society occurs gradually, over time, with each of us becoming aware that we are, directly or indirectly, supporting stereotypes based on sex: in our jobs, in our homes and neighborhoods, in our schools...

...and in our weblogs.

One last note on this issue, and I'll stop picking on these nice people and pissing most of you off: In both my postings, I never once said that either Doc or Halley was sexist. Please read what I wrote, and my associated comments. Once you do, please answer me this: exactly who is making generalizations from the writing of the postings to the person's character? It sure as hell hasn't been me.

(Doc's responses to my initial posting: here and here. Halley's here.)

Postscript: And if anyone wants to pull the link to my weblog from their blogroll because of this posting -- or any other of my postings -- please do. I will not make any comment about this action. I respect your right to link to me, or not. I must, if I ask your respect for me being able to freely express my opinion.

Posted by Bb at August 30, 2002 02:27 PM

Comments

What's interesting about the word "nigger" is that when it's used by African Americans with each other, it's not offensive. They've diffused the negative connotations of the word for their own purposes. So, I suggest that the same is true if women call themelves "babe" or "girl." Those words are not condescending when we use them with each other or about ourselves, but it tends to be when men use them to refer to us.

And, Shelly, no apologies should be necessary for continuing this conversation. Your reasons for doing so are exactly the point.

Posted by: Elaine of Kalilily on August 30, 2002 03:59 PM

If anyone pulls any links over this - well they gotta get a life. You have an opinion. They have an opinion. And that's all good.

No offense though ... I can never... ever... subscribe to being politically correct. That's beyond me.

Words aren't evil. It's *how they're used* that make them so. And whenever words are uttered, we need to look past the actual word, to see the context it's being used in, to determine it's real meaning.

That's why when my wife calls me honeybuns... well I'm not gonna take offense. And vice versa when I *do* call her baby. And yes... she wants me to.

Now if I was talking to a women over a business deal and I said "Baby... you need to see it this way."

Well I deserve to get my ass kicked.

Posted by: Karl on August 30, 2002 04:17 PM

Oh.. you might as well delete my previous post.. it's in agreement with you :)

duh. sorry.

Posted by: Karl on August 30, 2002 04:23 PM

uh-Kay... I'm biting...

Shelley sez: "when there is generalization based on sex, this promotes stereotypes in social roles." I tend to agree strongly with her implicit assumption that such stereotyping is generally bad. However, I think our relationships among genders, and preferences (with a nod to bi-, gay, lesbian, transgender issues as well as overt heterosexual mainstream role definition sexuality) must be nuanced with good fellowship (good [person]ship?) and good humor. I think there must be room for happy acknowledgement of distinctions, and differences... we lefty-liberal-tree-hugging-hippies and our brethren among the pasty-faced peaceniks have long suggested that everyone should celebrate diversity. Use of pejoratives is no celebration. So if there is general agreement among women that "babe" in all contexts when used by men is pejorative, then by all means let us consign it to the same place we long ago banished racist slurs and epithets. I think this is a discussion worth having, but I also think it is important that we discriminate carefully regarding the source. Is the speaker mean spirited, ill informed, poorly socialized, or well intentioned, good natured and/or simply a party animals?

We all know there is a difference in quality as well as in substance between the kind of clueless behavior that Dorothea blogged here and the lighthearted enjoyable material that Halley and Doc were sharing. This is not black and white. It isn't even gray. Some of it is a wonderful paisley that kind of crawls down the walls if you move your head just so, and some of it is vivid primary colors and some of it is pleasant pastels.

It is way too complex to assign values to keywords and suggest that their use be banned. Forever. From all discourse. Let's look at who we are and who we are communicating with and how we want to do that. Norms shift, and I imagine there are lots of sex role stereotype words that have already faded away... but I'll bet they come back some day. Doll, dearie, honeybunch, snugglepuff, babelet, chickie, sweetheart, and boo are not scary in or of themselves. It's all in what is intended.

If it is okay with everyone, I will continue to appreciate our differences and point them out and share that appreciation from time to time, in plain uncensored English. If you catch me using a word as offensive as "nigger," or even approaching it, let me know and I'll clean up my act. Until I'm informed clearly, I think I'll keep "babe" in the lexicon. Hell, maybe it IS me you're looking for, babe.

Posted by: Frankzilla on August 30, 2002 05:18 PM

In general, yes, agree strongly.

But it's notable that both examples you cite are cases where the sexism is against men, not women. You comment "there are few mainstream press publications that would have allowed either of Doc's or Halley's statements to pass the editor's desk" - but sadly, right now, many of them would indeed have done so - _because_ they denigrate men. In mainstream feminist-speak, sexism is deemed to be only one-way - for example, here in Australia 'sexual discrimination' is defined _in law_ as 'discrimination against women'; current 'political correctness' asserts that denigrating men in what you've correctly identified as a sexist way is not so much to be ignored as to be actively promoted.

Sexism, racism, ageism and the like always go _both_ ways: to pretend otherwise (sorry, Blogsisters, time you looked at your own behaviour here...) is nothing more than a form of other-abuse - which solves nothing, and helps no-one.

The fact that you _are_ aware of this, Bb, and that you _do_ challenge it whichever way it's promoted, are among the main reasons I keep coming back to your writing.

Thank you.

Posted by: Tom Graves on August 30, 2002 05:45 PM

Folks, I specifically did NOT bring 'babe' into this -- so, please don't add this in as part of my statement.

Frank -- there's a world of difference between private emails to each other and publically published weblog entries. I do see the humor in Doc and Halley's statement, which is why I added all sorts of caveats to this posting. However, my point is that it's just such day to day discourse where sterotypes are subtly affirmed.

Actually, Tom, most of the people I've talked to thought Doc's statement was more against women then men (i.e. technology and war/political weblogging is male like). However, I could see how you might possibly consider this against men if you consider technology and war (or political) weblogging to be 'bad'.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 30, 2002 06:04 PM

Jeeez, does that mean that I'll have to quit calling my very liberated daughter, "Babe"?

Personally, I'd prefer to be made aware if someone felt stereotyped or put down by something I've said or written.

I'm sure it won't be the last time I do it.

Posted by: Loren on August 30, 2002 06:04 PM

Loren, you can call your daughter baby doll (which is what my Dad calls me -- which doesn't give anyone else freedom to use same).

Personally, I think 'babe' is just too context dependent, which is why I dropped it.

I agree Loren -- I would really prefer knowing if I said something sexist, racist, ageist. I may not agree, but I sure would prefer someone at least pointing it out from their perspective.

And, I have backed down and apologized in the past for inappropriate or just plain nasty writing.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 30, 2002 06:12 PM

You are one brave woman, Shelley. I wouldn't have dared post this in a googol years.

I'm glad to see that the comments have all been respectful.

Posted by: Dorothea Salo on August 30, 2002 08:00 PM

Not so much brave, Dorothea, as being true to myself as a writer first, weblogger second.

Great comments, from everyone. This is very hopeful.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 30, 2002 08:38 PM

Dave Winer just wrote:
Halley Suitt loves men. "I love the way they look in a tie, a nice leash you can grab and bring them up close fast when you get the urge to kiss them." Sweet.

Why not just grab 'em by the cock while they're reading their bidness books?

Geez
Geez...

Posted by: Darcy D'Angelis on August 30, 2002 10:05 PM

I don't get it, does anyone not agree with Shelley? If not, how is this post in anyway controversial?
Me, all I have a problem with is that it seems to be "ok" for women to be sexist, but not for men to.

Posted by: tomas on August 31, 2002 06:33 AM

"...Oh: when you get tired of all the male kinda shit that seems to comprise 5/4 of the blog world (techblog or warblog... now there's a sexy selection)..."

hmmm.
help me please. Rewrite the above so it doesn't offend you.

on Halley...she needs to hang with a better class of guy *grin*

(dodging behind my monitor..)

Posted by: "the airhead" on August 31, 2002 07:17 AM

Tomas, you wouldn't believe an offline email thread on this posting and the associated topic.

I have actually seen sexism at its worse with women, and it is very wrong. I have met far too many women who don't believe we're 'fulfilled' unless we have a man to care for and little kiddies under foot. Makes me gag.

And I've seen women perpetuate the male stereotypes, such as "come take care of me, big boy". Which also makes me gag.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 31, 2002 07:19 AM

Shelley: I'm glad we are in agreement.

Unfortunately, some women doesn't recognize their sexist statements as sexism seemingly because they are women themselves.

Quote:
"Why can't men treat us the way we treat them. We can be funny and clever and flirtatious and even sexy without being sexist. What's their problem?"

If that is not a generalization by gender, I don't know what is.

Posted by: tomas on August 31, 2002 09:30 AM

Darcy, I don't know you, I don't even know if you're man or woman. But here's my philosophy on men and women. We're different. I have some idea what makes men tick. Women are a mystery to me. That's cool.

I found Halley's piece very sweet. Relaxing. Vive la difference. She loves men. What could be simpler? What man would mind being a slave to that kind of love.

My best advice to people who want to control other people is give it up. In 30 or 40 years give or take we're all going to be dead. Enjoy life the best you can while you're still here.

Posted by: Dave Winer on August 31, 2002 10:22 AM